get_user_orgs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it's a 'Get' operation (implying read-only) and describes the return data, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, pagination, or whether it requires specific permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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?

The description is perfectly concise and front-loaded. It uses exactly two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return value with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about what the tool does.

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 the tool has no parameters (simple input), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information: what it does and what it returns. However, it lacks important context about authentication, permissions, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools. The description is complete enough to understand the basic function but insufficient for confident usage without additional documentation.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. It appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a user organization' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'user organization'. It also specifies what data is returned: 'user information and all organizations joined by this user'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'get_orgs', which appear to exist in the sibling list, so it misses full sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools (like 'get_user', 'get_orgs', 'get_users', 'get_user_memberships') that might retrieve similar or overlapping data, but the description offers no comparison or context for choosing this specific tool. It simply states what the tool does without any usage context.

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