get_integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'connection status' which hints at behavioral output, but doesn't disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, whether it's idempotent, or what happens if the integration doesn't exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded by starting with 'Retrieve' instead of 'Get' for slightly better clarity, and lacks structural elements like bullet points for the included details.

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 read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention response format, error cases, or authentication needs. The mention of 'service-specific fields and connection status' adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (workspace_id and integration_id as UUIDs). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or relationship between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'full details of an integration', specifying it includes 'service-specific fields and connection status'. This distinguishes it from list_integrations (which likely returns summaries) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_workspace or other get_* tools that retrieve different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_integrations or get_workspace. The description implies it's for retrieving detailed integration data but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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