list_integrations

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, which is a key behavioral trait, but provides no further details such as whether authentication is required, what happens if no integrations exist, or how statuses are represented. The minimal disclosure is acceptable but not robust.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. It immediately states the action, object, and read-only attribute, front-loading the most important information. Every word adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its function. The read-only qualifier adds context that isn't available from structured data. It doesn't explain the exact content of the status list, but for a straightfoward list operation, this is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything at 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not detract from it.

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 states the action (List), the resource (ATS integration status), and specifies read-only behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like test_integration and get_integration_connect_url, which involve active testing or obtaining connection URLs. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (to view integration status), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions. It doesn't say 'use this to check connectivity' or contrast with test_integration. Siblings exist but no guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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