get_account_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals the type of accounts returned and the JSON-saving behavior via output_file, but does not discuss permissions, platform constraints, or behavior when no accounts exist.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a brief, well-structured arg list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, account types, and output file semantics. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though more on result details could be added.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for both parameters: device_id as an optional serial number and output_file as an optional JSON path, going beyond the bare schema types.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('registered accounts'), further clarified as Google, social media, and other linked accounts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_running_processes or dump_system_settings.

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?

It implies the tool is for enumerating accounts on a device, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools don't overlap, so the context is clear, but explicit guidance is missing.

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