list_integration_instances

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover the safety profile. The description adds context about the 'type' field on results, but that's more output semantics than behavioral disclosure. There's no mention of limits, pagination, or any side effects beyond the read-only nature, which is already covered by annotations. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is about 70 words across four sentences, all relevant. It front-loads the core purpose and then builds on it with mapping and exclusions. Slightly verbose in the tail (repeating the core purpose), but efficient and structured. A 4 is fair.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is thorough: it states scope, provides mapping for the output, and names the sibling that covers repository resolution. It doesn't mention pagination, but that's likely minor for this tool. Overall, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaning. The description compensates fully by explaining how to interpret the result: each instance has a 'type' field and maps to specific IDs (supabaseIntegrationInstanceId, githubIntegrationInstanceId, sourceIntegrationInstanceId) for create_migration. This is far beyond the baseline of 4 for 0 params, adding direct usage guidance for the output.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource: 'List all connected integrations for the organization.' It also differentiates itself from sibling list_source_repositories by explicitly stating what this tool is for (instance IDs, checking if any source-control account is connected) and that repository resolution belongs elsewhere.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool for the supabase/base44 instance IDs' and 'to check whether any source-control account is connected at all.' It also clearly routes repository resolution to an alternative: 'To resolve a repository, call list_source_repositories instead.' This is a textbook example of usage guidelines.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.