safe_mind_list_departments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses read-only semantics, the API-key requirement (SAFE_MIND_API_KEY or safe_mind_get_api_key), and the account-scoped company boundary. It does not mention pagination or list-size limits, which is the only notable gap for a list tool.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, return shape, relation to surveys, when to call, auth, scope) with the core action front-loaded. Nothing is redundant.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, how authentication works, what scope it operates on, and when to call it. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly on the first attempt.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering is possible and that the scope is fixed by the account key.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the departments/areas (Tätigkeitsbereiche) of the company as id and name') and even gives the return shape. It is clearly separable from siblings like safe_mind_create_department and safe_mind_list_surveys.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call it before safe_mind_create_department or safe_mind_create_survey to reuse existing names exactly', naming the alternatives and the condition that selects them. This is the strongest possible routing guidance.

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