list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool does not return secret keys and explicitly warns not to modify the repository or MCP startup command, reinforcing a read-only safety profile. It does not mention output format or error behavior, but this is acceptable for a simple list operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives workflow, alternatives, and a safety caution. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, safety, workflow, and alternatives. It implies that returned mailbox entries have an account_id usable by later tools, though it does not explicitly state the return shape. This is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain about individual inputs. The mention of account_id in downstream tools provides useful context about how the result relates to future calls, which adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 ('列出' / list) and a specific resource ('已绑定邮箱' / bound mailboxes), and adds the clarifying constraint that keys are not included. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_attachments and list_folders.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: new tasks should first call get_settings, and when multiple mailboxes exist, subsequent tools should pass account_id. It also explicitly routes add operations to add_mailbox and unbind operations to unbind_mailbox, leaving no ambiguity about when to use alternatives.

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