list_user_orgs

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description simply restates that by using 'List'. It adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, visibility of results, or authentication requirements. With no extra behavioral disclosure, the description does not go beyond the annotation.

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 one short sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 one-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema, the description covers the core action adequately. The missing details around parameter semantics and usage context are minor for this simple tool, but they prevent a perfect score.

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 one required 'username' parameter with no description and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only weakly implies that 'username' identifies the user whose organizations are being listed, but it does not clarify the expected format, whether this must be an authenticated user, or whether private organizations are included.

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 states a clear verb ('List'), a resource ('organizations'), and a scope ('a user's'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_org_repos and list_org_members because the resource is 'organizations', not repos or members. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user, list_org_members, or list_org_repos. The description implies usage only through its title and statement, but gives no context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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