List Accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the list is scoped to the authenticated user and accounts are connected in the Appmixer UI, not via this server. It does not discuss pagination or return ordering, but for a read-only listing the added context is meaningful.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, and the second adds only relevant context about account connection. No redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition gives enough to invoke it correctly and understand the account scope. It could mention what an account record contains or whether listing is paginated, but those are minor gaps.

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 zero input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; schema coverage is effectively complete. Per the 0-param baseline, this is adequate without extra parameter detail.

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 ('third-party accounts') and clarifies the scope is accounts connected by the authenticated Appmixer user. It also distinguishes the operation from account connection, which happens in the UI rather than this server, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as get_flow_accounts.

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?

Provides context for why accounts matter ('Components of connected apps need an account') and rules out connecting accounts through this server. However, it does not explicitly say when to call this versus get_flow_accounts/list_apps or mention exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than prescriptive.

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