infomaniak_get_account_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the scope of resources but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like conditional parameter requirements or pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Read', and every word contributes to naming the resource scope. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a complex multi-resource tool with 10 enum values and 3 optional ID parameters, but the description lacks any guidance on how to choose the right resource or which parameters are needed for each case. Although an output schema exists, the description does not bridge the gap between the abstract purpose and concrete invocation, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It fails to explain the 'resource' parameter, the conditional ID parameters (team_id, account_id, invitation_id), or which IDs are required for which resource. The enumerated list merely restates the enum values already visible in the schema, adding no semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'account inventory and governance drill-down resources', followed by an explicit enumeration of the resource types (accounts, products, services, tags, basic teams, team members, and B2B invitation customers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by covering a well-defined set of sub-resources.

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 usage for reading the listed resource types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as infomaniak_get_account_full or infomaniak_list_teams_and_tags. No when-not guidance or alternative suggestions are provided.

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