integration_list

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by stating the read behavior returns credential source (env/vault) but never the credential value, which is an important safety disclosure. Also clarifies stub-specific content, enriching what the annotation alone does not convey.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('List every integration adapter') and packs the essential output characteristics and safety qualifier without filler. Every clause earns its place; nothing can be cut without losing 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 what information is returned and the credential-source safety caveat, which is good. But the app_id parameter is unexplained despite being required, and there is no guidance on the expected scope or any edge cases such as empty results or how stubs are marked. The overall picture is incomplete for a tool that needs a required input.

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 is no description of the sole parameter app_id in the input schema and no mention of it in the tool description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it remains silent on what app_id means, how it filters the listing, or where an agent would retrieve a valid value. The param name alone provides minimal hinting.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('integration adapter'), with precise scope: live adapters and declared stubs. It also lists the returned dimensions (status, credential source, missing items and implementation criteria), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like integration_status or integration_call.

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 context is plainly implied: this is the overview tool for all integration adapters. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this versus sibling alternatives like integration_status, integration_call, or federation_list_servers. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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