List Accounts

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the returned data (accounts, statuses, email counts), which is useful, but it does not mention whether this operation requires credentials, whether it triggers synchronization, or whether it reads from cache. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise and contains no filler. It could arguably mention the output schema, but the sentence itself earns its place.

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?

The tool has no parameters and a simple listing purpose, and the description covers the key output dimensions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and usage timing, but overall the description is sufficient for a zero-parameter list tool.

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, so parameter semantics are inherently trivial. The schema coverage is 100% because there is nothing to document. The description adds value by specifying what the output covers, which helps an agent understand that no further input is needed.

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 a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all configured email accounts') and states exactly what is returned: connection statuses and total stored emails. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mailboxes, which would list mailboxes rather than accounts.

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 this is the tool for account-level overviews but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings such as list_mailboxes or get_sync_status. It gives enough context for an agent to infer the use case, but lacks direct guidance or exclusions.

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