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. The verb 'List' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and the description states what will be returned. However, it does not explicitly confirm whether any authentication, refresh, or external network access occurs.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and relevant output fields with no filler. Every word 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?

With no parameters and an output schema available, the short description is fully adequate. It tells the agent exactly what will be returned and is not missing critical information needed to invoke the tool.

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 the schema provides no meaning to add. The description compensates by specifying the output fields (aliases and active status) and the scope ('all linked'), which is useful context for an agent.

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 ('List') and names the exact resource ('all linked mcp-gmail accounts'), adding the aliases and active status fields. This clearly distinguishes account-list from siblings like account-me, account-switch, and account-remove.

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 phrase 'all linked' establishes a clear context: use this when you need the full set of connected accounts rather than the current one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling set makes the distinction reasonably obvious.

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