list_integrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning 'configuration status' for a list of integrations, but does not disclose authorization requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens if the project_id is invalid. The description is insufficient given the lack of annotation support.

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 relatively concise, listing integrations in a bullet format that is easy to scan. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, but the Args section could be better integrated. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Although the tool has a simple single-parameter schema and no annotations, the description lacks detail about the output schema (which exists) and what 'configuration status' entails for each integration. The completeness is inadequate given the lack of annotation support and the list of sibling tools that may have overlapping functionality.

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 one required parameter (project_id, string) with no description. The description repeats this parameter as 'Args: project_id: Project ID', which adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so effectively.

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 lists all configured integrations for a project and enumerates the available integrations (Prometheus, ClickHouse, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('integrations'), and is easily distinguished from siblings like 'configure_integration' or 'get_integration'.

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 for retrieving a list of all integrations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_integration' (which likely retrieves a single integration) or other list tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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