cigchat_get_integration_openai

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and the auth requirement, implying a read-only operation. However, it doesn't go beyond that to mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or response structure. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that includes the action, resource, HTTP endpoint, and auth requirement. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is easily scannable and informative.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It names the resource, action, endpoint, and auth need. It doesn't explain what the returned config contains, but for a straightforward GET config tool, this is sufficient and aligns with similar integration getters.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter details because none exist. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 the tool's function: 'Get the config of OpenAi integration', naming the specific resource (OpenAI integration) and the action (get). It also includes the HTTP endpoint, which reinforces the read-only nature. This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other integrations (e.g., get_integration_dropi, set_integration_openai).

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 a clear usage context by specifying the required auth scope: 'Requires the "Manage Team" scope on the token.' This tells the agent when the tool can be used (with proper token). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling set and verb 'get' imply it's for retrieval.

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