mgmt_accounts_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List linked Yandex accounts' and gives no information about authentication requirements, pagination, response shape, or side effects. For a read-only listing tool this is a moderate gap; the description adds no behavioral context beyond the operation name.

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 very short, but it includes a raw URL prefix that is not useful for an agent selecting the tool. The core sentence 'List linked Yandex accounts' is concise and front-loaded, but the URL wastes space and could be removed. It is not egregiously verbose, but it is not a model of efficiency.

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 simple list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks any context about what 'linked Yandex accounts' means, how the response is structured, or whether authentication is required. Given the tool's simplicity, a slightly richer description (e.g., 'Returns a list of Yandex accounts linked to the current user') would make it complete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (pretty and callback). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers the parameters. The description does not need to repeat what the schema already states.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List linked Yandex accounts'. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like mgmt_counters_list or mgmt_delegates_list, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative. The leading URL is noise but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is a management-level listing operation, nor does it contrast with related list tools such as mgmt_counters_list or mgmt_delegates_list. The only context is the resource name itself, which implies usage but does not state it.

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