misp_list_organisations

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

The description states it lists organisations but does not disclose that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination, authentication requirements, or what happens if no results are found. With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits.

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 captures the core function. It could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose, but it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and scope. However, it lacks details about ordering, pagination, and result format, which could be helpful for an agent.

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 input schema is well-described with an enum and description for the only parameter. The description adds context by implying that the list includes both local and remote orgs, which aligns with the parameter. However, it does not specify the default when scope is not set. Overall, marginal added value.

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 the resource (MISP organisations), and adds context about scope (local and remote sharing partners). This distinguishes it from siblings like misp_get_organisation (single org) and misp_list_sharing_groups (different entity).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as misp_get_organisation for a single organisation. The description does not explain the default behavior when the optional 'scope' parameter is omitted.

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