pressable_get_account_addons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only 'get' operation and clarifies that it returns a list (plural 'add-ons'), but it does not disclose potential details like permissions, pagination, or response structure. This is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that is clear and direct. It contains no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it correctly. It could be more detailed about what 'add-ons' encompasses, but for a simple list operation, the coverage is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none are needed; the empty input schema already covers everything. There is no gap to compensate for.

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 ('Get') and resource ('add-ons') and scopes it to 'your account,' clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'pressable_get_available_addons' which likely lists available add-ons. The one-line description fully states what the tool does.

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 this tool is for viewing add-ons already attached to the account, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance. The differentiation from 'get_available_addons' is implicit via the word 'attached' rather than explicit.

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