Gitea: List organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the scope constraint (only orgs for the authenticated user), but it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or how the 'site' parameter selects a Gitea instance — relevant for a paginated list tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the scope qualifier is placed where it matters. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds little informational value but costs almost nothing.

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 tool with no output schema and zero documented parameters, the description should at minimum explain 'site' and the pagination contract. It covers only the read scope, leaving an agent to guess how to target an instance and how results are paged.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description does not explain 'site' (which Gitea instance/host), nor 'page'/'limit' pagination semantics or maximums. Only the default values in the schema hint at behavior, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List organizations') plus a scope qualifier ('for the current authenticated user'), which separates it from siblings like gitea_list_org_repos or gitea_list_org_teams that operate on a specific org. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource noun is distinct enough for selection.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to related tools such as gitea_list_org_repos or gitea_list_user_repos. The only implicit guidance is the 'current authenticated user' scoping, which an agent must infer means no other user's orgs are returned.

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