list_organizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description uses 'List,' which implies a read-only operation, and references the API key scope, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is non-mutating, mention rate limits, or address potential pagination. The information is adequate but not rich; hence a 3.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action and resource directly and effectively, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 tool is very simple: zero parameters, an output schema exists, and the description covers the purpose and scope. It doesn't mention the return format, but the presence of an output schema compensates for that. A 4 reflects that the description is largely complete for a basic list tool, though it could explicitly note that it returns a collection of organizations or any potential limitations such as pagination.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% by default. With 0 params, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to explain, but it appropriately mentions the API key as the implicit scope parameter, which is useful contextual meaning.

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 clearly states 'List all Orb Cloud organizations accessible with the configured API key.' The verb 'List' is specific, the resource 'Orb Cloud organizations' is precise, and the scope ('accessible with the configured API key') adds clarity. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_devices and trigger_speedtest, which address different domains.

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 clear context that the tool lists organizations available via the configured API key, implying it should be used for organization enumeration. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tools are clearly unrelated (devices, telemetry, speedtests, datasets), making the usage intent obvious. This earns a 4 for clear context without explicit exclusions.

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