whodb_platform_org_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds only the per-call-targeting behavior (no mutation of defaults), which is closer to parameter semantics than behavioral disclosure; there is no note on pagination, result size, or visibility/permission rules.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded and the targeting note second. It is appropriately sized, though the workspace restatement slightly duplicates schema content rather than adding new information.

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 read-only, no-required-param listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the safety and parameter story is covered. What is missing is what "resources" concretely includes, any filtering interplay between resource_id/resource_type/team_id, and the boundary against project-scoped siblings; there is no output schema to compensate.

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 100%, so fields, team_id, resource_id, resource_type, and the nested workspace object are all documented in the schema. The description restates the workspace {host, org, project} shape but adds no format, defaulting, or filtering nuance beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ("List") and resource ("resources") scoped to "the selected organization," which lets an agent distinguish it from project-scoped listing. It does not, however, name or contrast with the close sibling whodb_platform_project_resources, leaving the boundary between org-wide and project-wide listing to inference.

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 second sentence explains that workspace {host, org, project} can be passed for per-call targeting without changing defaults, which is useful usage context. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over whodb_platform_project_resources, whodb_platform_user_owned_resources, or whodb_platform_user_resource_access, so usage is only implied.

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