roboshadow_list_organisations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It truthfully reveals that results are scoped by the refresh token's visibility and includes the caller's permission level, which explains access limits. It does not mention pagination or failure behavior, but for a zero-parameter list operation this is a minor gap.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then immediately adds the most decision-relevant guidance ('Start here') and the key output fields. Every sentence 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 simple, parameter-free discovery tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, how access is scoped, and why the agent should call it first. There is no output schema, so the explicit mention of ID, name, and permission level is especially useful.

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, and the schema is an empty object with 100% described coverage. The description correctly implies that no arguments are needed and focuses on output. No parameter documentation burden exists, so the score is at the baseline for parameter-free tools.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('RoboShadow organisation'), and specifies scope ('visible to this connector's refresh token') plus the exact fields returned (ID, name, permission level). This differentiates it clearly from the many sibling get/list tools that operate on a single organisation or other resources.

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 explicitly says 'Start here to discover the organisationId every other tool needs,' which tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and why it is the correct entry point among the sibling tools. It effectively establishes a prerequisite relationship for the rest of the API.

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