list_integrations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but no explicit statement about non-destructiveness, permissions, or pagination is included. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or excessive information.

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, the description covers the core function but omits details like response format, pagination, or rate limits. Without an output schema, the agent lacks information about return structure, which makes it moderately incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents, such as the 'view' enum or the relationship between teamId and slug.

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 explicitly states the verb 'List,' the resource 'installed integration configurations,' and the scope 'in the account/team.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools that target other resources like domains, deployments, or projects.

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?

While there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusionary guidance, the description clearly establishes the context for retrieving integration configurations. Given no sibling integration-specific tools, the context is sufficient to avoid ambiguity.

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