Metis — List Accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real content context — that results span accounts, project-to-account mappings, and retirement candidates — which is beyond the title. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or state permissions/scope, though 'list' strongly implies a safe read and an output schema documents the return shape.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the primary resource and then enumerates secondary content. The phrase 'accounts or sites still to be retired' is slightly oblique but earns its place by explaining a non-obvious return category.

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 covers the content envelope well enough to invoke correctly. The one gap is sibling differentiation against which_account, which matters given the crowded toolset.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 enumerates the concrete contents returned: all accounts (work and personal), each project paired with the account it uses, and accounts/sites pending retirement. That is more than the name 'list_accounts' conveys, so an agent understands it is an inventory/overview tool. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling 'which_account', leaving the boundary unclear.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as which_account or get_user_profile, and no prerequisites mentioned. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the 'see everything at once' call.

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