List account resources

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

The annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details by explaining the return wrapper structure ({items, total, truncated}) and how the include_details parameter changes the output between URIs and full resources. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover potential pagination or auth concerns.

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 two sentences plus an example, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then the return format, and the example is useful. Every element 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with only optional parameters and a rich output schema, the description provides enough context: the object structure, the include_details effect, and an example. It does not explicitly discuss pagination or endpoint selection, but these are already implied by the schema and the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well-documented. The description mostly restates the include_details behavior (URIs vs. full resources) and provides an example, adding marginal value beyond the schema. It does not clarify the 'endpoint' parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('AccountService account members'), and the optional behavior of including full payloads. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other resource types (e.g., list_systems, list_managers).

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 clear context about what the tool does and the output format, which helps an agent decide to use it for listing accounts. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other resources, so it falls short of a 5.

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