list_organizations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope (authenticated user's access) and return fields, but does not explicitly mention pagination, rate limits, or side effects. 'List' implies read-only, and the cursor parameter is present in the schema, but the description could be more explicit about behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and provides the essential return fields.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it lists, for whom, and what it returns. It could mention pagination to be more complete, but the schema covers the cursor parameter.

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% with the single cursor parameter fully described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action 'List all Sentry organizations the authenticated user has access to', specifying the resource (organizations), scope (all accessible to user), and returning fields. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools that focus on issues, projects, releases, etc.

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 context is clear: use this to list organizations the user can access. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to alternatives, but the sibling tools cover different resources, so the intended usage is evident.

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