list_access_bookmarks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only 'List' operation and gives no additional detail about pagination, result ordering, permissions, or any quirks of the resource.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short for a simple list operation, though the brevity sacrifices usage and behavioral context.

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 one-parameter list tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the operation and account scope. However, it omits caveats such as pagination, access permissions, or how to decide between this and the singular get_access_bookmark tool, leaving some ambiguity in a large sibling set.

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 account_id is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself provides the basic meaning, which is sufficient for this simple one-parameter tool.

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 ('Access bookmarks'), and the scope ('for an account'). This is clear and distinguishes the operation from siblings like get_access_bookmark, though it does not explicitly contrast with other list_access_* tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_access_bookmark or other Access-related list tools. The description simply names the operation and leaves the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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