list_integrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, which is mildly useful context but not beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the purpose before the endpoint. It could be slightly more structured by separating usage context, but it is efficient.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., what fields each integration has, pagination behavior). It also leaves the required parameter unexplained, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke with full understanding.

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%, so the project_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only shows it in the endpoint path, providing minimal semantic value (it implies a project identifier is needed) but no explanation of format, constraints, or behavior.

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 states a clear verb 'get' and resource 'integrations', and includes the endpoint path. It is distinguishable from most siblings but does not differentiate from similar list tools like list_integration_aliases or list_integration_values.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply says 'get all integrations' without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools.

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