tealfabric_list_integrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as query-style ('list', 'query'), but the schema includes a 'test' action that may execute a test run and have side effects—this action is omitted from the description. The description also does not clarify that behavior varies significantly by action, which is critical for safe invocation.

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 primary purpose and then expands to additional capabilities. It contains no filler, though the list 'details/status/statistics/execution history' is somewhat compressed. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

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?

This is a complex multi-action tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too sparse to be complete: it does not clarify what each action returns, which parameters are required or relevant per action, or whether 'test' has side effects. An agent would need to reason through schema enum descriptions and guess at usage patterns.

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?

With only 42% schema description coverage and 12 parameters, the description needed to compensate, but it only vaguely mentions 'action filters.' It does not explain which parameters apply to which actions, or how pagination, sorting, and filtering work. The action parameter is already described in the schema, so the description adds little beyond that.

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 tool lists integrations and can query details, status, statistics, and execution history through action filters. The verb and resource are specific, and the multi-action nature is mentioned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools, but the resource name 'integrations' makes the distinction obvious.

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: use this tool to list or query integration-related data. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like tealfabric_list_connectors, nor does it explain when each action filter should be chosen. The context is present but not fully developed.

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