nex_browser_accounts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation declares this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that usernames are masked, secrets are never returned, and that the result provides accountId values intended for nex_browser_fill_account. This directly informs the agent about data safety and downstream usage, exceeding the annotation's coverage.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource; the second provides security constraints and a pointer to the next step. Every clause adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It does this adequately: it indicates the result includes bound platform accounts and user-saved passwords, masks usernames, omits secrets, and exposes accountId for use with nex_browser_fill_account. It lacks explicit pagination/return-format details, but for a simple list operation with two optional params, this is sufficient.

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 input schema describes both parameters (windowId and windowIds alias) with 100% coverage, but the descriptions are minimal ('One window ID or a list' / 'Alias of windowId'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 applies; the schema already handles parameter clarity adequately.

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 clear, specific operation: listing autofill-capable credentials from the vault plugin. It identifies the resource scope ('vault plugin', 'bound platform accounts', 'user-saved passwords') and explicitly notes what is not returned (secrets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nex_account_list without needing to name them.

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: it lists credentials for use with nex_browser_fill_account. It implies the tool is a prerequisite for filling an account and warns that secrets are never returned, setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative listing tools, so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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