get_integration

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: the response's field set varies by integration type, and password/OAuth secret fields are masked. This helps an agent set expectations about non-uniform responses and sensitive data handling.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the key facts are front-loaded: what the tool returns, then the type-dependent field caveat and masking behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with one required parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It names the resource, notes variable fields, and discloses masking behavior. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about response shape or error behavior would improve it, but the current description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the single parameter integration_id is already documented as 'Integration ID.' The description adds only the framing that it is 'a specific' integration, which does not materially enhance parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a specific integration's full definition.' It clearly distinguishes this from the plural get_integrations and from integration mutation tools like create_http_integration or delete_integration. The note that field set depends on integration type adds useful precision.

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 word 'specific' clearly signals a by-ID lookup for one integration, which is the correct time to use this instead of get_integrations or create/update/delete tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for a simple get-by-id operation.

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