list_integrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, and the absence of side effects is implied. It does not mention pagination or return format, but for a simple list tool with an optional filter, the description is adequate and does not hide any critical behavior.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second gives usage context. No wasted words, and the most important information (what it lists) is front-loaded. Excellent structure.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It does not explain return fields or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity and the clarity of its name, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'type' parameter, including allowed values and examples. The description mentions integration types but does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage, and the description does not need to compensate further.

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 lists integrations configured for the organization, with examples of types (Slack, webhook, email) and the context of discovering notification channels before attaching them to a check. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_integration, as it is explicitly a listing 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 gives a specific use case: 'Use this to discover what notification channels are available before attaching them to a check.' This implies when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with create_integration or mention exclusions. Clear enough for an agent to understand the intended workflow.

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