get_organization_forms

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention that pagination is supported (via page/size parameters) or that 'get all' is per-page rather than a full dump. No information about auth, performance, or edge cases is given, which is a notable gap for a tool that returns a list.

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 with no redundant wording. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose. Structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 list tool with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not explain that results are paginated, what the return format is, or how to handle sorting. Given the presence of sibling tools, additional context on when to use this versus related tools would improve completeness. The description is minimal for the tool's actual complexity.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (page, size, sort). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the tool name; it neither clarifies parameter formats nor provides usage examples. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully covers the parameters.

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 the tool retrieves all organization forms, distinguishing it from the singular 'get_organization_form' and the scoped variants ('for_units', 'for_subunits'). However, it does not explicitly name these siblings or elaborate on the exact scope (e.g., all forms across all units), leaving some ambiguity about when this differs from the scoped tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_organization_forms_for_units or get_organization_form. The reader is left to infer that 'all' implies a global list, but without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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