get_integrations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool is cache-based and makes no API calls, which is crucial for understanding data freshness and side effects. It stops short of explaining error behavior when the cache is missing or stale, which would enhance transparency further.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear action verb with resource, a provider list, and a critical usage note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving high information density in just two sentences.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (integration settings for the listed providers), the caching mechanism, and the prerequisite sync step. For a tool with a single parameter and simple purpose, this is adequate and complete context.

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 already describes the only parameter (projectId) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It provides no additional semantic detail about the parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the documentation.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Get Integrations settings' and enumerates the specific providers (Supabase, SQLite, GitHub, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_general_settings or get_app_settings by explicitly mirroring the FlutterFlow Integrations section.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Run sync_project first.' It also notes the tool is 'cache-based, no API calls,' implying it is a lightweight, non-fetching operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, so it doesn't meet the 5-criterion of explicit when/when-not/alternatives.

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