accounts_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does clarify that credentials are never included, which is useful security context, but it does not mention what happens when no accounts are logged in or whether the result is cached or fetched live.

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 sentence conveys the action, scope, output content, and an important security characteristic. There is no redundant or filler phrasing.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description captures scope, output content, and credential safety. It does not specify the exact response shape, but that is acceptable given the simplicity and the sibling context.

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 are no parameters, so the schema provides none. The description adds useful semantic context by describing what the result contains: game roles with uid per game. That is enough to set the baseline and a bit beyond.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the well-scoped resource 'logged-in miHoYo accounts' and describes the included content: game roles and uid per game. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from auth flow and refresh sibling tools.

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 description states what the tool produces, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer it over related tools like auth_status or accounts_refresh. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives.

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