list_mcp_integration_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint: true), non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds value by specifying that it returns 'total plus enabled-state entries' and positions it as a preparatory step for toggling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no redundant information. Every word 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 listing tool with one parameter and an assumed output schema, the description provides the purpose, return summary, and usage context (preparation for update). It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', and its description is adequate. The tool description does not add extra parameter details, but since the schema already covers it, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'capabilities exposed by the external MCP server for an integration', and distinguishes it from siblings like 'update_mcp_integration_capabilities' and 'list_mcp_integrations'. It also specifies the return content (total plus enabled-state).

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?

Explicitly advises to 'use before update_mcp_integration_capabilities when you need to compare the current surface', providing clear context and an alternative. This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool versus the update sibling.

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