List connected storage

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful domain context about what an integration is, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or account scoping, so the behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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?

Two short sentences, the purpose front-loaded and the examples following. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It would be stronger if it hinted at what the returned integrations are used for (e.g. feeding ids into the file/transfer tools), but nothing critical is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema cannot be augmented and there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Get list of connected integrations') and illustrates the domain with concrete examples (AWS S3, Frame.io, Dropbox, MASV Storage Gateway). It implicitly separates itself from file-level siblings, but never names them, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_files_on_integration or send_package_to_integration, which share the 'integration' concept. An agent must infer that this is the discovery step before those tools.

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