cwp_account_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing states pagination defaults, whether results are capped, auth requirements, or ordering. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant gap.

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. Nothing redundant, the action and resource come first.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally say what a listed account contains and how the limit/offset paging behaves. As a simple read tool it is minimally adequate, but the absence of return-shape and paging guidance leaves real 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, offset, and search are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The phrase 'optional filtering' loosely gestures at the search parameter but adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('CWP accounts'), which cleanly separates it from the singular cwp_account_info or the mutation siblings like cwp_account_create. However, it never names an alternative or explains scope (e.g. all accounts vs. by user), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'with optional filtering' hints at a use case but gives no when-to-use guidance versus cwp_account_info or cwp_account_metadata, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the enumeration tool from the name alone.

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