Организации Эльбы

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does communicate that the tool is a read-only fetch ('Получает') and that results depend on the configured API key. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, failure modes, response shape, or rate-limit/auth consequences, so transparency is only partially addressed.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The main action and key scoping condition are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately concise for such 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?

The description is adequate for a basic call: it names a clear outcome and the authentication context, and no parameters are required. But it is incomplete in meaningful ways: no parameter guidance, no explicit pagination note, no alternative routing, and no output-schema hints. This is a minimally viable, but not rich, definition.

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% and the description does not explain the two parameters (limit and offset) at all. It does not add any meaning beyond the bare parameter names and schema constraints, and because coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate but does not.

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 and resource: 'Получает список организаций' (gets a list of organizations) and adds the scope 'доступных по настроенному API-ключу' (available via the configured API key). This makes the purpose clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like elba_list_operations, which targets operations instead of organizations.

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 context — call this when you need the list of organizations accessible with the current API key — but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over elba_list_operations or elba_request, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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