get_organization_abilities

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It explains that the result is role-derived abilities and indicates how the tool aids in error interpretation, but it does not describe the return format or behavior on failure. This adds some context but leaves gaps.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the purpose, provide examples, and give actionable pairing advice. Every word earns its place, with no filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and provides valuable usage context, but with no output schema, it does not fully specify the return format. Given the simplicity of a one-parameter getter, it is mostly complete but could benefit from a note on the expected response structure.

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 schema description for 'id' is generic ('ID of the resource'), but the description's phrase 'in an organization' hints that the id refers to an organization, adding meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and this extra context justifies a 4.

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 retrieves role-derived abilities for the current user in an organization, with concrete examples like 'manage Asset' and 'view_details Tag'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as whoami or get_membership by focusing on abilities rather than identity or membership.

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?

It provides explicit guidance to pair with INSUFFICIENT_SCOPE errors to distinguish role denial from missing token scope, which is an actionable usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it is slightly below a perfect score.

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