list_integration_matchers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the REST endpoint path, which confirms it is a scoped list read, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering for collection endpoints where that matters.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation before the endpoint. The path is somewhat redundant with the schema and name, but no sentence is wasted.

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 no-output-schema list tool with two required IDs, the description covers input scoping adequately via the path but leaves the return shape, whether all matchers are returned, and pagination unstated. Annotations carry the safety story, so this is close to adequate but not complete.

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 0% with two required integer params, so the description must compensate. The path template GET /project/{project_id}/integrations/{integration_id}/matchers does map each parameter to its role (project container vs. integration container), which is genuine added meaning, but the odd phrase "integration extractor" muddies whether integration_id refers to the extractor or its parent integration.

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 names a verb (Get) and resource (Integration Matcher), and the embedded path clarifies it is a collection endpoint under a project/integration. But it uses the singular "Integration Matcher" for a list tool named list_integration_matchers, and never distinguishes it from the sibling get_integration_matcher or list_integration_values, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when not to use it, and no naming of an alternative sibling. The only contextual hint ("linked to integration extractor") is oblique and does not tell an agent when this list call is the right choice.

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