Notes List Accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds context about the 'delegated Apple domain', which suggests permissions or a delegation model, but it does not disclose what happens when no accounts exist, whether the list is empty, or whether account types (iCloud, Exchange, etc.) are returned. With annotations covering safety, the added behavioral context is moderate.

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 a single sentence, compact and front-loaded with the tool name and domain. The trailing 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP' is somewhat redundant boilerplate, but it does not detract heavily from readability or scannability.

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, read-only listing tool, this is minimally viable but lacks useful context: it does not explain what 'accounts' means, how the returned list relates to notes_list_folders or notes_list_notes, or whether the output is a flat list or a structured hierarchy. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the relationship to sibling tools remains unexplained.

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 properties, so there are no parameters to document. Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already fully communicates the invocation contract. The description correctly implies that only an account list is returned. A 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter information deficit.

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 states a specific verb and resource: the tool lists accounts for the delegated Apple Notes domain. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like notes_list_folders and notes_list_notes by naming the resource ('accounts'). The generic 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP' phrasing adds some noise, but the core purpose is clear.

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 implies the tool is for enumerating available Notes accounts within a delegated domain, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings such as notes_list_folders or notes_list_notes. No exclusionary guidance is provided, and there is no mention of whether this should be called before other Notes operations.

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