Tool Selection & Integration (TSI) Principles

Enterprise Architecture principles for evaluating, selecting, and integrating AI development tools.

Category TSI

Principles 3

Focus AI Tool Evaluation, Selection, and Integration

Status 🔍 Under Peer Review

Category Overview

flowchart TB
    subgraph Evaluation["EVALUATION LAYER"]
        direction LR
        Identify["Identify Need"] --> Evaluate["Evaluate Options"] --> Select["Select Tool"]
    end

    subgraph Integration["INTEGRATION LAYER"]
        direction LR
        Configure["Configure"] --> Integrate["Integrate"] --> Test["Test"] --> Deploy["Deploy"] --> Monitor["Monitor"]
    end

    subgraph Principles["TSI PRINCIPLES"]
        TSI001["TSI-001: Evaluation Framework<br/><i>Standardize tool evaluation</i>"]
        TSI002["TSI-002: Integration Standards<br/><i>Define integration requirements</i>"]
        TSI003["TSI-003: Protocol Adoption<br/><i>Leverage MCP/A2A protocols</i>"]
    end

    Evaluation --> Integration
    Integration --> Principles

Key Concerns:

Security and compliance requirements for AI tools
IDE and workflow integration capabilities
Protocol standardization (MCP, A2A)
Team collaboration and knowledge sharing

Principles in This Category

ID	Principle Name	Statement Summary
TSI-001	Evaluation Framework	Standardize AI tool evaluation criteria
TSI-002	Integration Standards	Define integration requirements for AI tools
TSI-003	Protocol Adoption	Leverage MCP and A2A protocols for tooling

Relationship to Other Categories

flowchart TB
    PS["PS: Planning &<br/>Strategy<br/><i>Strategy drives tool requirements</i>"]

    PS --> TSI

    TTA["TTA: Training<br/>& Adoption<br/><i>Tools require training</i>"]
    TSI["TSI: Tool Selection<br/>& Integration<br/><i>Foundation for all AI tooling</i>"]
    DC["DC: Development<br/>& Coding<br/><i>Tools enable dev practices</i>"]

    TSI --> TTA
    TSI --> DC
    TSI --> GSC

    GSC["GSC: Governance<br/>Security<br/><i>Security drives tool requirements</i>"]

TSI-001: Evaluation Framework

Statement

Evaluate AI development tools using a standardized framework covering security, integration, and team requirements.

Rationale

Dimension	Justification
Business Value	Consistent evaluation ensures tools deliver expected ROI
Technical Foundation	Structured evaluation identifies integration and compatibility issues early
Risk Mitigation	Security and compliance assessment prevents data exposure and violations
Human Agency	Humans define evaluation criteria; AI tools are selected based on merit

Implications

Evaluation Dimensions

SECURITY	INTEGRATION	TEAM
Data privacy	IDE support	Learning curve
Compliance	Version control	Collaboration
Access control	CI/CD pipeline	Customization
Network security	API access	Cost model
Classification	SSO support	Support SLA

flowchart LR
    subgraph Models["TOOL INTERACTION MODELS"]
        Conv["Conversational<br/><i>Architecture, complex debug, documentation</i>"]
        IDE["IDE-Integrated<br/><i>Code completion, quick refactor, flow maintenance</i>"]
        Agent["Autonomous Agents<br/><i>Rapid prototyping, multi-file changes, large refactoring</i>"]

        Conv --> IDE --> Agent
    end

Area	Implication
Development	Standard evaluation process before tool adoption
Governance	Security review mandatory for all AI tool approvals
Skills	Train evaluators on AI tool assessment criteria
Tools	Maintain approved tool registry with evaluation scores

Maturity Alignment

Level	Requirements
Base (L1)	Checklist-based evaluation; security review required
Medium (L2)	Weighted scoring model; proof-of-concept required
High (L3)	Automated evaluation pipeline; continuous tool assessment

Governance

Compliance Measures

Evaluation framework documented and approved
Security criteria defined with minimum thresholds
Tool evaluations documented with scores
Approved tool registry maintained
Annual re-evaluation of existing tools

Exception Process

Condition	Approval Required	Documentation
Evaluation for pilot	Manager	Limited scope defined
Fast-track approval	Director + Security	Business justification
Waive security criteria	CISO	Risk acceptance form

PS-002: Strategic Integration (strategy guides tool selection)
GSC-001: Governance Framework (compliance requirements)
TTA-001: Skills Development (training for new tools)

TSI-002: Integration Standards

Statement

Define and enforce integration standards for AI tools covering authentication, data flow, and workflow compatibility.

Rationale

Dimension	Justification
Business Value	Standardized integration reduces implementation time and maintenance costs
Technical Foundation	Common integration patterns enable tool interoperability
Risk Mitigation	Consistent integration prevents security gaps and data leakage
Human Agency	Humans define integration requirements; tools must conform

Implications

flowchart TB
    subgraph Access["ACCESS LAYER"]
        IDE["IDE Plugin"]
        VCS["Version Control"]
        CICD["CI/CD Pipeline"]
        Security["Security Gateway"]
    end

    subgraph Integration["INTEGRATION LAYER"]
        Auth["Authentication"]
        AuthZ["Authorization"]
        Audit["Audit Logging"]
        Encrypt["Data Encryption"]
    end

    subgraph AI["AI TOOL LAYER"]
        Tools["AI Tools"]
    end

    IDE --> Integration
    VCS --> Integration
    CICD --> Integration
    Security --> Integration
    Integration --> Tools

Area	Implication
Development	Standard integration patterns documented and enforced
Governance	Integration review required before production deployment
Skills	Train teams on integration standards and patterns
Tools	Integration testing automated in CI/CD pipeline

Maturity Alignment

Level	Requirements
Base (L1)	Basic SSO; manual integration review
Medium (L2)	API-based integration; automated testing; audit logging
High (L3)	Dynamic configuration; self-healing integrations

Governance

Compliance Measures

Integration standards documented
Authentication via enterprise SSO required
All data flows encrypted
Audit logging enabled for all AI tool interactions
Integration testing in CI/CD pipeline

Exception Process

Condition	Approval Required	Documentation
Legacy system integration	Architect	Migration plan
Non-standard auth	Security Team	Compensating controls
Air-gapped deployment	CISO + Architect	Security architecture

TSI-001: Evaluation Framework (integration criteria in evaluation)
TSI-003: Protocol Adoption (standard protocols for integration)
DM-001: Pipeline Integration (CI/CD integration standards)

TSI-003: Protocol Adoption

Statement

Adopt standardized protocols (MCP, A2A) for AI tool integration to ensure interoperability and future compatibility.

Rationale

Dimension	Justification
Business Value	Standard protocols prevent vendor lock-in and enable best-of-breed selection
Technical Foundation	MCP and A2A provide proven patterns for tool and agent integration
Risk Mitigation	Standard protocols have documented security models and audit capabilities
Human Agency	Protocols define boundaries for agent autonomy and human oversight points

Implications

flowchart TB
    subgraph A2A["HORIZONTAL: A2A (Agent-to-Agent)"]
        direction LR
        AgentA["Agent A"] <--> AgentB["Agent B"] <--> AgentC["Agent C"]
    end

    subgraph MCP["VERTICAL: MCP (Model Context Protocol)"]
        ToolsA["Tools/Data"]
        ToolsB["Tools/Data"]
        ToolsC["Tools/Data"]
    end

    AgentA --> ToolsA
    AgentB --> ToolsB
    AgentC --> ToolsC

MCP Primitives

TOOLS	RESOURCES	PROMPTS
(Agent controlled)	(Host controlled)	(User controlled)
Agent invokes autonomously	Host provides structured data	User selects and configures

Area	Implication
Development	New integrations must use MCP/A2A where applicable
Governance	Protocol compliance verified during integration review
Skills	Train teams on MCP/A2A protocol implementation
Tools	Prefer tools with native MCP/A2A support

Protocol Selection Guide

Scenario	Recommended	Rationale
Single agent with tools	MCP	Direct tool integration
Cross-vendor agent collaboration	A2A	Standardized discovery/delegation
On-device/offline agents	MCP	Local stdio transport
Long-running workflows	A2A	Task lifecycle management
Security-sensitive operations	Both	MCP for tools, A2A for auth

Maturity Alignment

Level	Requirements
Base (L1)	Awareness of protocols; MCP for new tool integrations
Medium (L2)	Full MCP implementation; A2A for multi-agent scenarios
High (L3)	Dynamic protocol negotiation; custom protocol extensions

Governance

Compliance Measures

Protocol standards documented
New integrations evaluated for protocol support
MCP servers include audit logging
A2A communications authenticated and authorized
Protocol versions tracked and managed

Exception Process

Condition	Approval Required	Documentation
Legacy tool integration	Architect	Migration roadmap
Custom protocol needed	Principal Engineer	Technical justification
Protocol bypass	Security + Architect	Risk acceptance

TSI-002: Integration Standards (protocols enable standards)
DC-004: Agentic Development (protocols for agent coordination)
GSC-001: Governance Framework (protocol compliance)

Category Summary

Principle Matrix

Principle	BASE (L1)	MEDIUM (L2)	HIGH (L3)
TSI-001 Evaluation Framework	Checklist + security review	Weighted scoring + POC	Automated continuous assessment
TSI-002 Integration Standards	Basic SSO, manual review	API + audit, automated testing	Dynamic + self-healing
TSI-003 Protocol Adoption	Awareness + MCP	Full MCP + A2A	Dynamic negotiation

Legend: Requirements increase with maturity level

Key Takeaways

Standardize evaluation - Use consistent criteria across all AI tool assessments
Integration is architecture - Treat AI tool integration as an architectural concern
Protocols prevent lock-in - Standard protocols (MCP, A2A) ensure interoperability
Security is non-negotiable - Every evaluation and integration requires security review
Match tool to task - Different interaction models suit different use cases