orgunits_list

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'List organizational units.' It does not disclose default behavior, such as the 'type' defaulting to 'all', the need for orgUnitPath when listing children, or any read-only assurance. The agent is left without critical behavioral context.

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 a single short sentence, 'List organizational units,' which is extremely concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a tool with such a simple purpose.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not explain return values, filtering logic, or the relationship to sibling tools. The agent must rely on the terse schema, and even that is insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. While the schema has an enum and default for 'type' and a description for 'orgUnitPath', the tool description does not explain how these parameters affect the listing, thus contributing nothing beyond structured fields.

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 'List organizational units' clearly uses the verb 'list' and identifies the resource as organizational units, which distinguishes it from getting a specific unit via orgunits_get. However, it does not mention the two listing modes (all/children) visible in the schema, so it is slightly under-specified.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like orgunits_get or other list tools. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contexts mentioned, leaving usage entirely inferred from the tool name.

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