get_all_balances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates a read operation and the 'configured accounts' scope, but it does not disclose aggregation behavior, pagination, whether zero balances are included, or any other non-obvious runtime behavior.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: an agent knows what it retrieves and what scope to expect. It could be slightly richer by naming get_balance as the single-account alternative, but nothing is missing for correct invocation.

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 parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description's phrase 'all configured accounts' adds relevant context about what is being queried, satisfying the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 ('获取', get) and a specific resource ('所有已配置账户的余额', balances of all configured accounts). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_balance, which is the single-account counterpart.

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 scope 'all configured accounts' implies when to use this tool versus get_balance, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool or when to prefer the singular alternative. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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