list_organizations

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

With no annotations, the description provides rich behavioral details: it explains the impact on other tools (reads/writes active organization), the meaning of fields like is_switchable and role, and the significance of null values. It also explains which organizations are visible but not switchable. This goes beyond minimal disclosure.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, usage guidance, and a response field breakdown. Each section adds value without redundancy. It's concise for the amount of context provided.

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 tool, the description fully explains behavior, when to use it, and what each response field means. It also clarifies the active-organization context that is critical for using other tools. No gaps.

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 description correctly focuses on behavior and response fields. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description fully compensates by explaining the response structure and usage context.

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 organizations) and the resource (organizations/teams/projects). It also specifies the purpose: to show which organization is active. This distinguishes it from siblings like switch_organization, which handles changing the active organization.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'If results look empty or belong to the wrong team, call this first... then use switch_organization.' It also clarifies that every other tool uses the active organization, setting clear context for when this tool is needed over alternatives.

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