herdr_integration_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the discovery framing conveys a status-query semantic. However, it doesn't explicitly state it has no side effects or how output is structured, leaving some behavior implicit rather than disclosed.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the useful example list are front-loaded, followed by a single concise usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter, optional-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. Return-value structure isn't described, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward listing semantic make this a minor gap.

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 100%, so the single outdated_only parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Only list integrations whose hook/extension is outdated.' The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline score.

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 specific verb (show), resource (agent integrations), and scope (install status), and enumerates concrete examples (pi, omp, claude, codex, opencode, hermes, qodercli). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like herdr_bridge_status since it addresses integration installs, not bridge or worker state.

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 an explicit directive: 'Use this to discover what agent types are available in this herdr install.' This gives clear intended context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives to exclude, but the discovery/status framing makes the intended scenario evident.

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