List the accounts on a list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no ordering, no note about lists that fail to resolve or the handling of a malformed at:// URI.

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?

It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing — a single fragment with no front-loaded verb or scope. There is no wasted sentence, but there is almost no sentence at all.

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 four-parameter, read-only, paginated endpoint with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the cursor/limit pagination loop and what each returned account entry represents. None of that is present, and one parameter is undocumented even in the schema.

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 coverage is 75%: list, limit, and account are documented in the schema while cursor is not. The description contributes zero parameter meaning on top of that, leaving the pagination parameter entirely unexplained in both places and offering no format examples beyond what the schema already gives.

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 'The accounts on a curated list.' is a noun fragment that essentially restates the tool name and title without a verb. 'Curated list' hints at Bluesky list semantics, but an agent gets no confirmation of what operation is performed or how it differs from siblings like get_lists or search_actors.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search_actors, get_follows, or get_list_posts. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the way to enumerate membership of an already-known list.

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