List an agent's integrations

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

readOnlyHint already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's value is in the extra detail it supplies: the exact shape of the returned integration key (`<INTEGRATION>_<connection id>`) and the 404 error condition when the agent is absent from the credential's workspace. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about pagination or empty results.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the return-format detail immediately after. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present and read-only annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what's missing: key format and the 404 case. Complete enough to call correctly, though it could note paging behavior for large integration lists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including paging and the account header. The description only tangentially adds meaning by tying the lookup to the workspace the credential resolves to, which mildly reinforces the account-scoping semantics of X-Orchestra-Account-Id.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: listing the integration connections a given agent can use. The "an agent can use" qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling list_integration_connections, but the description never explicitly names that alternative, so a reader must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The agent is left to guess whether this or list_integration_connections / set_agent_integrations is the right call in a given situation. The 404 note is a behavior, not usage guidance.

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