get-integrations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly guarantees secrets are not included in the response and names the required 'integrations:read' scope. This helps an agent set expectations about both output content and authorization.

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 entire description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary behavior ('List connected integrations'), then adds the essential caveat ('without secrets'), the endpoint, and the required scope. 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 zero-parameter read-only list operation, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what it lists, what it excludes, the endpoint, and the required permission. The absence of a response format description is a minor gap, but not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema has full coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not introduce phantom parameters and provides enough context for a parameterless call.

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 action and resource: 'List connected integrations'. It also specifies the key constraint 'without secrets' and the exact HTTP endpoint, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many list-* siblings.

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 clearly indicates this is the tool to use for listing connected integrations, reinforced by the API path and required scope. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it, but no alternative integration-listing tool exists among siblings, so the context is sufficient.

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