list_memberships

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' conveys a safe, read-only operation and 'for the authenticated user' discloses the identity scope, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or what fields a membership contains, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 eight-word sentence with zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and scope but omits the response shape entirely. One clause noting that it returns the accounts and roles associated with the user would materially help. Adequate, but with a clear gap.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the 0-params baseline, no parameter documentation is required.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('account memberships'), and an explicit scope ('for the authenticated user'). The scope phrase distinguishes it from the conceptually adjacent sibling list_account_members, which lists the users of an account rather than the current user's own account associations.

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 usage context is implied: retrieve the authenticated user's memberships when you need to know which accounts the current user belongs to. However, it never explicitly names alternatives (get_membership, list_accounts, list_account_members) or states when not to use this tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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