List Integration Packages

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The claim 'List all integration packages' is potentially misleading because the 'top' parameter (default 100) limits results, so it won't return 'all' if more than 100 exist. There is no mention of pagination, ordering, or permission requirements.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain the 'top' parameter semantics and the discrepancy between 'all' and the default limit. It also omits any detail about return format or behavior when the workspace has many packages.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'top' parameter. The description does not mention 'top' at all, leaving the agent without any insight into what the parameter does beyond its schema type and constraints.

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 ('integration packages'), and the scope ('tenant's design workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_integration_flows and get_integration_package, which focus on flows or single package details.

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 implies the intended use case (listing all packages in the design workspace) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_integration_package or list_deployed_artifacts. No exclusions or preference statements are given.

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