get_integration

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

With no annotations, the description adequately covers the read operation and mentions the output includes connection details, settings, and status. However, it does not discuss authentication, permissions, or rate limits, which limits transparency.

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 concise with two sentences and a parameter list, front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and key return fields. It could mention required permissions or error cases, but overall is complete enough for a 'get' tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value: 'project_id' is merely restated, while 'integration_type' includes examples. This is insufficient to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it retrieves configuration details for a specific integration type, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_integrations (which lists all) and test_integration (which tests connectivity).

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 provides clear context for retrieving a specific integration's configuration. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it (e.g., for listing all integrations). This cost one point.

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