list_organizations

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('List all organizations') but does not mention pagination behavior, despite the input schema having page_size and after parameters that imply multi-call retrieval may be needed. It also omits any mention of rate limits, ordering, or that the tool uses cursor-based pagination.

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 consists of two short, clear sentences. Every word adds value: verb, resource, scope, and return fields. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or that the 'after' parameter is a cursor for fetching the next page. For a simple list tool with two well-described schema parameters, the description is largely complete but could strengthen behavioral context.

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%: both page_size and after have descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or format expectations. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'organizations (clients/customers)' in NinjaOne, and specifies the returned fields: organization ID, name, description, and node count. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_organization (single) by implying 'all' 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_organization for a single organization or get_organization_locations for locations. It does not state prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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