get_integration_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by listing three read-oriented queries (correlation, retry/error, recent sync activity) and the phrase 'Check the health' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects. While it doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness, the transparency is sufficient given the read-only nature.

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 extremely concise: a two-sentence introduction followed by a bulleted list of three items, plus a final usage sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The bullet format aids quick scanning, and the total word count is low for the information conveyed.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool checks, the parameters, and when to use it. It does not describe the return format, but the absence of an output schema means the description is not expected to detail that. A minor gap is not specifying that results are returned as a JSON object, but overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters: 'prefix' and 'last_n_errors'. The description adds context by naming the tables queried and mentioning 'last N records synced', but does not directly map to the 'last_n_errors' parameter (which controls errors, not all sync records). This slight disconnect prevents a higher score, but the schema already provides clear meanings.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and resource 'health of a running bidirectional integration', clearly listing three query areas (correlation table, retry/error table, recent sync activity). This is distinct from sibling tools like 'health_check_instance' which checks instance-level health, and 'monitor_import_set_progress' which monitors import sets. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to monitor the integration after it goes live', providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention situations where this tool should not be used (e.g., before deployment) or alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., 'diagnose_issue' for troubleshooting failures). Still, the guidance is direct and helpful.

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