list_qq_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the data source (local sandbox, saved credentials) and the returned information categories (saved accounts, default active account, online account). It remains implicit that this is a read-only operation (via 查看) and adds no detail on pagination, ordering, or failure modes when no accounts exist.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the enumerations of what the list contains come first and the follow-up switch hint is placed last. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does describe the three categories of account information returned. It is largely complete for a simple list tool, though it does not state whether the result is paginated or what happens when no credentials exist.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No argument syntax or options need describing.

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 (查看/list) and resource (QQ 账号 with saved login credentials), and further specifies exactly what is enumerated: the saved-credential account list, the current default active account, and the currently online account. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_login_info, which reports the single logged-in identity.

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 second sentence routes the agent to the sibling tool switch_qq_account and explains the condition (listed accounts can be switched online without re-scanning a QR code). This gives usable context for follow-up actions, but there are no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other account tools such as login_new_qq_by_qrcode.

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