accounts.list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that – the data comes from a local 'accounts registry file' rather than a remote API – but says nothing about freshness, caching, or whether reload is needed to see new entries.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource, and source are all packed in without waste. It is appropriately sized for a trivial no-argument listing tool.

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 parameterless read whose output schema documents the return shape and whose annotations cover the safety profile, the definition is essentially complete. The only shortfall is the absence of any relationship to accounts.reload or accounts.upsert, which would matter for agent sequencing.

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 per the baseline rule this is a 4. The description adds nothing parameter-related, but nothing is needed, and the schema is empty.

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 ('configured project profiles'), and names the source ('accounts registry file'), which distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like accounts.upsert or accounts.delete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with accounts.reload, but the read semantics are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before upsert/delete on accounts. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor a pointer to siblings such as accounts.reload for refreshing the registry.

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