get_account_slots

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: slots are key-value metadata, account can be a path/%short GUID/full GUID, and omitting 'key' returns all slots. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded: the core action is stated first, followed by a short clarifying explanation and a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 tool with a single required parameter, the description covers the account reference formats, the optional key semantics, and general slot context. The output schema exists, so return values are already specified elsewhere. Nothing essential is missing.

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 bears the full burden for parameters. It clearly explains the 'account' parameter's accepted reference formats and the optional 'key' parameter's default behavior, far exceeding the schema's bare field names.

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 opens with 'Read slots (custom metadata) from an account', a specific verb and resource, and clarifies slots as key-value pairs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling set_account_slot and delete_account_slot, which perform mutations.

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 read-only wording and slot key-value explanation make the intended use clear against the set/delete siblings, and the account ref formats provide conditions for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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