list_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that credentials are not exposed and that cached quota and live worker state are included, which adds useful context. But it omits other behavioral details like whether it is strictly read-only, side effects, authentication requirements, or pagination.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and layers in constraints and returned data. Every clause earns its place.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the returned data adequately but leaves out routing information relative to siblings and omits details like pagination or response shape. It is enough to call the tool but not enough to confidently choose it over alternatives.

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 regarding parameter semantics.

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 resource ('accounts') and clarifies the returned data ('cached quota and live worker state') and a safety property ('without exposing credentials'). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_account_usage or refresh_account_usage.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account_usage or refresh_account_usage. The only contextual hint is the credential-safety note, which is not usage guidance.

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