aap_list_organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the paginated response format and return keys (count, page, page_size, results), which goes beyond annotation data. It does not disclose potential edge cases like empty results, but for a simple read-only list this is acceptable.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and parameter summary. It is slightly longer than necessary because the Args section repeats schema information, but it remains well-structured and readable without being verbose.

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 (a read-only list with pagination), the description covers everything needed: what it does, what it returns, and how parameters affect the result. The presence of an output schema (or the inline return description) and strong annotations complete the picture, leaving no major 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 description includes an Args section that explicitly lists each parameter with its default and purpose (page, page_size, search), which is redundant with the schema but still helpful. Even though schema coverage is reported as 0%, the description fully compensates by documenting all three sub-parameters clearly.

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 begins with 'List all organizations in Ansible Automation Platform', using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organizations') with clear scope. It also states what the response contains (IDs, names, descriptions, member counts), distinguishing it from the sibling 'aap_get_organization' which retrieves a single 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 makes it clear that this tool lists all organizations and supports pagination, implying its use for bulk retrieval. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'aap_get_organization' for single-org lookups, so it lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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