list_accounts

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, but the description adds concrete behavior: it reads the local registry plus one GET /me for the acting account, returns account_id/profile name/display name/token file PATH, and explicitly never returns token material. This exceeds the annotation coverage and provides useful operational context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core list action, followed by return details and safety behavior. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description fills the gap by naming returned fields and clarifying that no token material is included. Annotations cover safety, and the description supplies the behavioral and return context an agent needs.

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 sole parameter response_format has 100% schema description coverage with an enum and default, and the description does not discuss it at all. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 'local accounts this server can act as', and adds the active-account distinction. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_user_profile and switch_account.

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 usage for discovering available local accounts and the currently active one, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over switch_account or get_user_profile. No when-not or alternative routing is given, leaving usage to inference.

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