npm_org_packages

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by revealing that the result includes access levels and clarifies that 'accessible' covers packages the org owns or has been granted. It does not mention authentication or pagination, but those are not essential given the read-only safety profile.

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 concise sentences with the core action front-loaded ('List all packages...'). Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or boilerplate content.

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 single-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is sufficient: it states the scope ('all packages accessible'), the distinguishing output detail ('access levels'), and the ownership/grant nuance. The rich annotations and simple schema mean no further context is needed for an agent to select and invoke this correctly.

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 fully describes the single required parameter `org` with the note 'Organization name (without @ prefix)' at 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('all packages accessible to an npm organization') plus includes the distinguishing detail of access levels. It clearly separates this from sibling tools like npm_user_packages and npm_team_packages by anchoring on the organization scope.

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 usage: use this when you want to see an organization's accessible packages and their access levels. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as npm_user_packages for user-scoped listings or npm_team_packages for team-scoped listings.

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