list_jumpserver_database_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that only non-secret accounts are returned and that the asset must be an exact match, which informs the agent about the nature of the results and the precision required. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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, tight sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and scope, effectively communicating the essential information. The structure is optimal for quick parsing by an agent.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It explains the critical asset requirement but omits details about pagination (limit) and filtering (search), which are optional but could affect how results are retrieved. An agent would need to infer their behavior from names and defaults, leaving some gap in completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter semantics. It clarifies the 'asset' parameter (accepts a name, address, or UUID), but does not mention 'limit' or 'search'. While these have useful defaults and types, their purpose is left to inference. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (non-secret accounts), and the identifying criteria (exact database asset name, address, or UUID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_jumpserver_databases (which lists databases, not accounts) and the credential retrieval tools, leaving no ambiguity about what is being listed.

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 when to use this tool: to list accounts for an exact asset identifier. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the 'exact' clause clarifies that fuzzy matching is not supported, and the sibling tools serve different purposes (testing, retrieving credentials, listing databases). The guidance is clear but could be more explicit about not using this for secret retrieval, which is covered by 'non-secret accounts'.

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