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 burden. It describes a read-only listing operation with no side effects, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or confirm idempotency. Basic transparency is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second lists capabilities. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description specifies returned fields. The tool is simple and the description covers essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and supported features. Slightly lacking on behavioral details like pagination limits or error handling, but complete enough for basic use.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described. The description adds context by mentioning pagination and filtering, but does not provide extra syntactic or format details beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists social accounts connected to a Repliz workspace. It specifies the returned fields (id, platform, username, picture, status) and mentions pagination and filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like repliz_get_account (single account) and repliz_count_accounts (count).

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 with pagination and filtering, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for a single account) or provide alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes the primary use case clear.

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