list_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the membership scoping, which is helpful, but does not mention pagination, sorting, or behavior for empty results. For a read-only list operation, this is a moderate disclosure gap, warranting a mid-range score.

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 that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and scope. No wasted words, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 simple, parameterless list tool, the description covers the essential information: what is listed and for whom. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return structure or fields, which is a minor gap. Still, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly use the tool in most contexts.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to explain. According to the rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, maintaining that baseline.

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's function with a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('companies'), and adds important scope ('that the authenticated user is a member of'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_company' (which likely retrieves a single company) and 'list_company_members' (which lists members of a specific company).

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 implicitly defines when to use the tool: to retrieve all companies associated with the authenticated user. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and distinguishes it from more specific company-related tools, meeting the criteria for 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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