list_integration_clients

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions pagination and a limit range (1-1000), but does not cover ordering, defaults for missing parameters, or authentication requirements. The description adds some value but is incomplete.

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 uses a docstring structure with Args and Returns, which is clear. However, it includes an erroneous parameter and could be more front-loaded. The length is appropriate but not maximally efficient.

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 list tool with pagination, the description is fairly complete, noting it returns a paginated list. However, it omits prerequisites like authentication and does not specify the ordering of results. The output schema may cover return values, but overall completeness is average.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate. It adds a range for limit (1-1000) and describes site_id, but incorrectly includes a non-existent parameter 'settings', which contradicts the schema. This error significantly reduces reliability.

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 clearly states 'List connected clients via the integration API,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'clients' among many list_integration_* tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_integration_client.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_integration_client or other list_integration_* tools. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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