infomaniak_list_organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that the listing is limited to organizations the token has 'technical access to', clarifying the scope of 'all'. This is meaningful additional behavioral insight, though it doesn't mention pagination or rate limits. With annotations carrying the bulk of the safety profile, a 4 is warranted.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function and scope. No unnecessary words or repeated information. It is ideal in size and front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) and an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what is listed and the access scope. The openWorldHint covers potential pagination, and the output schema handles return values. No gaps remain.

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, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and scope rather than parameter details.

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: 'Lists all Infomaniak organizations (accounts) the current token has technical access to.' It uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('organizations/accounts'), and adds a scope qualifier ('current token has technical access to') that distinguishes it from other listing tools that might list different resource types.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to list all organizations accessible by the current token. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple listing tool with no parameters, the context is sufficiently clear. A score of 4 is appropriate: 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.