velog_list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the tool returns a list and does not disclose whether this is a read-only local operation, whether prior login is required, or what the exact return shape is. For a simple list tool the risk is low, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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, tightly written sentence in Korean that front-loads the resource ('등록된 벨로그 계정 별칭 목록') and the action ('반환합니다'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy 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 parameterless list tool, the description is minimally adequate: it states what is returned and no input is needed. However, there is no output schema to define the response structure, and the description does not clarify whether the list is in-memory, persisted locally, or requires an active session. This leaves a small but real gap for an agent deciding if the tool is applicable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning or syntax, and no schema gap to compensate for.

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 ('반환합니다' / returns) and a specific resource ('등록된 벨로그 계정 별칭 목록' / list of registered Velog account aliases). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like velog_list_posts (which lists posts) and velog_login (which authenticates).

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 implies this tool is used to see registered account aliases, likely before other Velog operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions or routing guidance is provided, leaving the context to be inferred from the name.

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