List the accounts on a list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds essentially nothing beyond the word 'curated' — it does not disclose pagination via cursor, ordering, rate limits, or what the returned account objects look like. With no output schema, these omissions matter.

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?

Five words is not conciseness but under-specification — the description merely echoes the title with 'curated' appended. There is no front-loaded verb, no scoping detail, and no sentence structure. It does not earn its place because it adds almost no information beyond the title.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and 40+ siblings including the closely related get_list_posts, the description is far from complete. It never explains what the response contains, how pagination works, or how to choose between this and the similarly named list tools. An agent could not confidently invoke this correctly from the description alone.

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 schema covers 3 of 4 parameters well (list format 'at:// URI or bsky.app link', limit bounds/default, account handle selection and fallback), so the schema carries the burden. The description itself adds zero parameter meaning, and the cursor parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 'The accounts on a curated list' is a noun phrase that conveys the resource being retrieved (accounts/members of a Bluesky list) and weakly distinguishes from siblings like get_list_posts (posts on a list) via the word 'curated'. However, it lacks a verb, is nearly a restatement of the title, and does not clearly differentiate from the many list-related siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling such as get_list_posts or get_lists is mentioned, no exclusions are stated, and the only cross-reference (list_accounts) lives in the parameter schema rather than the description. The agent is left to infer selection criteria entirely.

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