get_organizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic listing action and does not mention authentication requirements, potential empty results, pagination, or the shape of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides a minimal but adequate understanding. However, it omits any indication of the return format or behavior beyond 'listing', which could leave an agent unsure about what to expect as output. The lack of annotations further reduces completeness, but the simple nature keeps it from being lower.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered (100%) vacuously. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters; the description adds no parameter-specific detail because none exist.

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 action (List) and resource (organizations), with a scope qualifier ('the user can access'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools that target other resource types (e.g., clusters, workflows, buckets).

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 purpose inherently implies when to use it: when you need to see organizations available to the user. However, the description does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other list tools (e.g., list_groups or list_clusters), nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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