janus_with_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety posture is partly covered. The description adds the key non-obvious behavior that the active account is left untouched, but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or what happens to the invoked tool's writes. Adequate, not rich.

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 tightly written sentences with the primary behavior and its distinguishing constraint front-loaded, followed by the discovery fallback. No filler.

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 an open-world meta-tool with no output schema, the description covers the core modes (invoke vs. list) and the account-scoping behavior well. It omits behavioral detail on the arbitrary tools it may invoke, which is a minor gap given annotations carry the safety profile.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of omitting 'tool' to list tools duplicates what the schema already states about the tool parameter, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Run a single tool call on another account') plus a critical scope constraint ('WITHOUT changing the active account') that implicitly separates it from the sibling janus_use_account. An agent can tell what this does and what it is not without opening any schema.

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 'WITHOUT changing the active account' clause establishes clear context for when to use this over janus_use_account, and the description instructs how to discover tools ('Omit tool to first list that account's available tools'). It stops short of naming the alternative sibling explicitly or stating exclusions.

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