iota_wallet_accounts

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

The description clearly indicates a read-only listing operation via the verb 'list', but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or return format. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and the lack of detail beyond the core action is a slight gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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, simple listing tool, the description is sufficient at a high level. However, without an output schema, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., list of account strings or objects), which is a minor but non-critical omission.

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 the schema description coverage is trivially 100% and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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') and clearly identifies the resource ('all accounts in the IOTA Agent Wallet'), which distinguishes it from sibling wallet tools like balance, address, or pending. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the usage is clearly implied as the only account-listing tool among the siblings. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, but the simple nature of the operation makes the implied usage sufficient.

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