get_integration_guide

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the tool functions with or without a running server, and in the stopped case the guide falls back to the default port and the result reports serverRunning:false.

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?

A single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers the output contents and the server-state caveat in a logical order. Every clause carries information; minor tightening is possible but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned artifacts (script tag, snippet, bookmarklet, URL) plus the serverRunning flag field. For a zero-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 and resource ('Get the overlay/bookmarklet integration instructions') and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: script tag, console snippet, bookmarklet, and /inject URL. This is unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like list_tasks or start_kanban.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule: call start_kanban first when you need real URLs, and explains the tool still works otherwise. It doesn't describe any other alternatives, but the prerequisite and fallback behavior are clearly spelled out.

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