list_postiz_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 discloses that this is a read/listing operation and what each returned channel contains, which is useful. It omits auth requirements (a Postiz connection must exist) and does not say what an empty result looks like, but for a zero-parameter read-only list the risk surface is small.

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 sentences with zero waste; the purpose and the return shape come first, and the usage instruction follows. The pipeline tag is compact and informative rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's mention of returned fields (id, platform, display name) is the only source of return-value information, and it provides it. Minor gaps remain around error/empty states and authentication prerequisites, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly 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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description adds no parameter detail, nor does it need to, since the input schema is empty and fully covered.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (connected social integrations in Postiz), and it goes further to state the return shape (id + platform + display name per channel). It also positions itself in the pipeline ('[Pipeline step 6 — Publish]'), so an agent can distinguish it from the read/write siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this first to get the integration_id before calling send_to_postiz.' This names the sibling it feeds and the ordering constraint, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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