integration_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds valuable context: it never returns credential values (only sources), it includes stubs, and it reports what is missing and what earns implementation. This goes well beyond a generic 'list', though it doesn't mention side effects or error behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds specific and useful details. Every phrase adds value: live vs. stubs, status, credential source, and stub-related info. No wasted words.

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 description partially compensates for the missing output schema by describing what fields will be returned (status, credential source, missing items, implementation criteria). However, it fails to clarify the required app_id parameter, and does not mention potential pagination, filtering, or edge cases. This leaves the tool incompletely specified for an agent.

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 schema requires 'app_id' with no description and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention app_id at all, leaving its purpose and scope ambiguous – especially since it claims to list 'every' adapter. This is a critical gap for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every integration adapter'), and details the scope: live and declared stubs, status, credential source, and stub readiness specifics. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like integration_status (likely single adapter status) and integration_call.

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 usage by saying 'List every integration adapter' – if you need an overview, use this. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations when not to use it, such as checking a single integration status with integration_status.

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