cigchat_integration_claude

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a read-only GET operation through the endpoint, and it discloses the required authorization scope ('Manage Team'), which is essential for invocation. It does not explicitly state that no changes are made, but the GET method strongly implies it, and the scope requirement adds valuable operational detail.

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, concise sentence that leads with the action ('Get the config'), specifies the resource, includes the endpoint, and states the required scope. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 GET tool with no parameters, the description is complete: it names the resource, gives the endpoint, and notes the permission requirement. The return value is implied by 'config', and there is no output schema to complicate matters. This provides sufficient context for an AI agent to invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially fully covered. Per the guidelines, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none 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 CaludeAi integration' with the HTTP endpoint '[GET /integration/claude]', specifying both the action and the exact resource. The tool name and description unambiguously distinguish this from sibling get_integration_* tools for other services like Dropi, OpenAI, or Shopify.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need the Claude AI integration configuration. It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires the "Manage Team" scope on the token'), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like set_integration_calude or when not to use it, so it lacks direct exclusions.

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