list_organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds value by clarifying it lists organizations visible to the auth'd account and notes scope-dependent private membership visibility. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, or what happens with an incorrectly scoped account.

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?

A single concise sentence efficiently conveys purpose and scope with no filler. It could arguably add parameter detail, but as written it earns every word.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should compensate more. For a read-only tool with a required 'account' parameter and an optional 'hostname', the absence of any parameter or return-format explanation leaves the agent guessing about the required param's meaning.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for both parameters. Yet it provides zero information about what 'account' specifies (it's required but its role as the GitHub account whose orgs to list is unexplained) and what 'hostname' does (enterprise host vs. github.com). No parameter is described.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('organizations') and adds clarifying scope: organizations 'visible to the authenticated GitHub CLI account, including private memberships allowed by its scopes.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_repositories, list_accounts, and get_auth_status.

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 implies this is the tool for enumerating org memberships, and the mention of 'private memberships allowed by scopes' hints at scope-dependency. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention exclusions (e.g., does not filter by account beyond the required parameter).

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