balena_list_organization_memberships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—e.g., it does not mention that top/skip are used for pagination, how parent_id scopes the result, or what a 'membership' entails. With annotations covering safety, the description fails to add extra behavioral transparency such as result structure or pagination 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 a single sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core purpose. However, it is almost too terse—while concise, it sacrifices needed detail. Still, for the dimension of conciseness and structure, it is efficient and correctly ordered.

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 that the tool has 3 optional parameters, a pagination pair (top/skip), and an ambiguous parent_id that can be a fleet, team, or organization ID, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain pagination, what is returned, or how the optional parameters affect the result. For a list operation without an output schema, more behavioral and parameter context is expected.

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 only 33% (only parent_id has a description). The tool description does not explain top or skip, nor does it clarify that parent_id is the organization within which members are listed. It adds only a weak implication that 'organization' relates to parent_id, but does not compensate for the undocumented 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List members of an organization.' It is distinct from balena_list_organizations (which lists orgs themselves) and balena_list_team_memberships (which lists team members), though it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings. It lacks an explicit 'not team memberships' note, which would fully differentiate it among similar list tools in the sibling set.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as balena_list_team_memberships or balena_list_organizations. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., organization ID) or when not to use it. The only implied usage is from the tool name and description itself, which is insufficient.

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