List Organizations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds scoping information about membership and the included role field, but it does not describe the response shape, ordering, or any pagination behavior. This matches a basic read-only list disclosure but not a richer behavioral explanation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every part contributes essential information: the action, the resource, the membership filter, and the included role field.

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-only list operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what will be returned: all organizations the user belongs to and their role in each. No critical detail appears to be missing for correct invocation.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaningful context about what the returned list represents, which is all that is needed here.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('organizations'), and a precise scope ('the authenticated user is a member of'). It also adds the useful detail that the role in each organization is included, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_members or list_projects.

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 clearly implies this tool is for the common task of finding which organizations the current user belongs to. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but for a zero-parameter list tool the context is clear enough.

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