get_account_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves accounts, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, data sensitivity, or what 'accounts' entails (e.g., usernames, emails). This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified for a tool handling login-related data.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured by front-loading key details more explicitly. There's minimal waste, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like security or usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it provides a minimal viable explanation, scoring at the threshold of adequacy.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'website' parameter fully documented as 'The domain name of the website you need to login, e.g. "github.com".' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for gaps.

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: 'Retrieve the accounts can be used when logging into a website.' It specifies the action ('retrieve') and resource ('accounts'), and the context ('when logging into a website') is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_2fa_code or get_password, which prevents a score of 5.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning 'when logging into a website,' which implies usage context but lacks explicit when-to-use rules or alternatives. There's no mention of when to use this tool versus get_2fa_code or get_password, or any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving significant gaps in usage direction.

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