get_integration_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only status check ('Reports whether') and describes the optional behavior of includeCreateOptions. It could be more explicit about response structure or lack of side effects, but the read-only nature is implied clearly enough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance and explains an optional parameter. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and what optional behavior exists. Since there's no output schema, a more explicit description of the return format (e.g., connected boolean, provider details) would improve completeness, but the description is adequate for a status-check tool with a clear purpose.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of includeCreateOptions and giving usage context, but the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. No significant gap to compensate for.

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's function: 'Reports whether a third-party integration is connected for a project.' It enumerates specific providers (Jira, Linear, Asana, monday.com, GitHub) and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing create_external_issue and connect_integration, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Call this before create_external_issue or connect_integration to check whether the provider is already active.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool and names the related alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about its positioning.

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