cigchat_get_integration_ainvented

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a GET (read-only) and requires the 'Manage Team' scope, providing meaningful behavioral context. It does not describe response format or error cases, but for a simple config retrieval this is adequate.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes essential context (HTTP method and scope requirement) without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless GET tool, the description is complete: it states what is retrieved, the endpoint, and the required permission. It lacks an explicit explanation of the config's contents or response structure, but given the simplicity and absence of an output schema, the description is sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details since none exist, and no further semantics are needed.

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 'Get the config of Ainvented integration' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'config of Ainvented integration', distinguishing it from sibling integration tools by explicitly naming 'Ainvented'. The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint '[GET /integration/ainvented]' further reinforces the specific operation.

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 implies usage for retrieving the Ainvented integration config and mentions the required 'Manage Team' scope, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_integration_ainvented or other get_integration_* tools. It provides context but no clear when-not guidance.

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