accounts_current

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the active account governs credentials for all later calls, and pinning via ASC_ACCOUNT makes the account non-switchable. It does not describe the return format (e.g., what fields identify the account), but for a simple read this is a solid disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the credential effect and the pinning constraint. No filler; each sentence 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?

For a zero-param, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key operational constraint. It stops short of describing what the response contains beyond the hinted `pinnedTo`, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of `pinnedTo` describes a returned/derived value rather than an input, which slightly enriches understanding without being required.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Show which account is currently active') that is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like accounts_list (all accounts) and accounts_switch (change active account). An agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

It clarifies the consequence of the current account ('All subsequent API calls use this account's credentials') and the pinning constraint, which is useful context. However, it never explicitly routes the agent to accounts_switch for changing the account, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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