jules_list_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects, or return format. This is minimally sufficient for a simple list operation.

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, coherent sentence that is entirely on point. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundant information.

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, parameterless listing tool, the description provides the essential context: what is being listed. It does not detail the return structure, but this is somewhat obvious for a list operation and there is no output schema to complement. The absence of a mention of differentiation from jules_list_sources is a minor gap.

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, which per rubric is a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning since there are none to clarify.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'configured Google Jules / GitHub accounts and routing aliases'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jules_list_sources and jules_list_sessions, which target different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as jules_list_sources. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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