ads_mastodon_account_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does contribute one genuinely useful trait: access tokens are not returned, which frames this as a safe read-only listing. It says nothing, however, about ordering, pagination, or what happens when no accounts are connected.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. The security qualifier is placed where it is read first.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the definition covers the safety-relevant aspect but leaves the agent guessing about the shape of each returned account entry (handle, id, instance) and about empty-result behavior.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Not mentioning parameters is appropriate here.

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 and resource ('List ... Mastodon accounts') and adds the qualifier 'locally connected', which tells the agent these are accounts configured in this system rather than remote lookups. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g. ads_mastodon_auth_start), so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as ads_mastodon_auth_start or ads_mastodon_auth_complete, nor any prerequisite or exclusions. The only hint is the word 'locally', which implies discovery of already-connected accounts but is left to inference.

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