list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation (listing) and the returned fields (IDs, platforms, names), implicitly signaling a read-only action. It does not mention side effects or pagination, but for a zero-parameter list tool, this is sufficient.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and includes only essential details. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the zero parameters, no output schema, and simple list nature, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and return value. It also connects to the broader workflow by noting the use of IDs in post creation, making it contextually complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter explanations. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds value by explaining the output's purpose, which is sufficient.

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 ('List') and resource ('all connected social media accounts per Posthive workspace'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools that operate on posts or templates. It also states what is returned (account IDs, platforms, display names), leaving no ambiguity.

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 explicitly advises using the returned account IDs when creating posts, providing clear context for when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but no sibling tool serves the same account-listing purpose, so the guidance is adequate.

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