accounts

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it declares 'Read-only' and discloses caching behavior ('uses a short cache'), plus the cost implication of refresh ('one network call per account'). It stops short of stating what happens when Codex is not installed or how stale the cache can be.

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?

One dense sentence with the resource and its contents front-loaded, followed by the read-only and caching caveats. Every clause earns its place, though the enumerated field list makes it long for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

Low complexity, one optional boolean, no output schema, and no annotations — the description covers what is returned and the safety/caching profile adequately. Missing only edge-case behavior (Codex absent, cache staleness) which is minor for a read-only lister.

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% and the single optional 'refresh' parameter already documents bypassing the cache. The description's 'short cache' phrasing reinforces the default behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('pooled Claude Code accounts'), then enumerates the data returned: 5-hour/weekly usage windows, per-model windows, headroom, live sessions, and the Codex CLI backend. Siblings ('delegate', 'monitor') are clearly different actions, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but the description never names 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read tool to inspect account state, while 'delegate' and 'monitor' act on it. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'do not use for…' statement, and no mention of prerequisites such as having accounts configured.

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