List organizations

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the warning that is_user=true entries are personal accounts rather than real organizations, and that Woodpecker treats org-level secrets for both. This clarifies data semantics in a way annotations cannot.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the admin restriction, and a critical data-modeling caveat. The most important operational constraint (admin only) is front-loaded, and there is 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?

For a simple paginated list tool with read-only/idempotent annotations, a 100%-covered parameter schema, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it lists, who may call it, and how to interpret the returned entries. The is_user warning is especially valuable for correctly consuming the output.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both page and per_page are already fully documented in the input schema, including the clamping behavior of per_page. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable given the schema coverage, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('Lists'), the resource ('organizations known to this Woodpecker instance'), and the admin-only scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like lookup_organization or get_organization, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 states 'Admin only,' which is a clear access condition, and the plural 'Lists' implies this is the tool for enumerating all organizations. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over lookup_organization or get_organization, and no when-not-to-use information.

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