list_organizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool lists organizations and is safe for context; it does not disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a list operation, more transparency is expected.

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 very short (3 brief statements), but this veers toward under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It lacks necessary details on parameters and return value, making it less useful than it could be.

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's simplicity, the description omits important context: what the output contains (list of organizations fields), how pagination works (the per_page parameter affects results), and whether any filters are available. It is incomplete for effective use.

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 only parameter, 'per_page', is entirely undocumented in the description (0% schema coverage). The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to explain its purpose, default value, or behavior.

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 'List all organizations in Foreman.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organizations'), and without ambiguity distinguishes itself from the many get_* tools that retrieve single items.

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 includes a 'CONTEXT OPTIMIZATION' note hinting at typical use case (<20 organizations, context-window-safe), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools like search or filter variants.

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