accounts_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that no secrets are included, which is helpful. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any potential side effects. For a list tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and includes critical details. Every word is necessary; no fluff.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could be improved by specifying that the list includes all accounts regardless of the current selected account, but the core information is present.

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 (empty object). With 100% schema description coverage and 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, but it does add value by describing the output contents (names + key-file paths).

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 specifies the exact action ('List every Play Console account registered'), the resource ('accounts'), and what is included ('names + key-file paths, no secrets'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like accounts_add (add account) and accounts_current (current account).

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 the tool is used when a full list of all registered accounts is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names (e.g., accounts_current, accounts_switch) provide context for differentiation.

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