tg_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context about multi-account support and the selection mechanism, but it doesn't disclose edge cases (e.g., what happens if no account is signed in) or any side effects. Since it's a read-only query tool, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second paragraph adds necessary context about account selection without redundancy. Every 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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the account model and how this tool fits with siblings, providing enough information for an agent to know when and why to call it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter information since none exist, and the schema already confirms this.

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's purpose: showing which Telegram accounts the daemon holds and which one is currently active for calls. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool tg_account_use by explaining that tg_accounts is about querying account state, not switching 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 provides clear context: it explains that multiple accounts can be signed in and that every other tool operates on the account selected via tg_account_use. This implies when to use tg_accounts (to view accounts and current selection) and points to an alternative for selection, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need to know the active account'.

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