list_accounts

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

The description indicates a read-only operation, but with no annotations provided, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the listing includes account details or just IDs. The simplicity of the tool (no parameters) mitigates some concern, but more context would be beneficial.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise with no wasted words.

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 extreme simplicity (no parameters, straightforward operation) and the existence of an output schema to describe return values, the description is adequately complete. It could optionally hint at the output structure, but this is not necessary.

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 no parameters, so the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. According to the guidelines, for 0 parameters the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states the action 'list' and the resource 'Spotinst accounts', with a specific scope 'accessible with the current token'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_clusters or list_vngs.

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 usage for listing accounts accessible with the current token, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'probe_token_capabilities' or other list tools. A brief comparative note would improve clarity.

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