get_integrations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' (implying read-only) and provides useful definitional context about integration instances, but does not disclose potential pitfalls like error conditions, pagination, or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the second paragraph contains a redundant sentence ('This function retrieves...') that restates the first sentence, slightly reducing conciseness without adding much value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema available), the description provides sufficient context by defining integration instances and the filtering option. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation but is otherwise complete for a straightforward read operation.

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 already covers the sole parameter 'model' with a descriptive comment. The description's mention of 'optional model filtering' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's function: retrieving integration instances from the Itential Platform, with optional model filtering. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on 'instances' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_integration_models'.

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 implies usage (to retrieve integration instances) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or differentiate from similar tools such as get_integration_models, despite a large sibling list.

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