list your sync organizations

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that results depend on credential type: a Sync app connection lists only the organizations ticked at connect time, while an API key returns only the key's own organization. That tells the agent how to explain an unexpectedly short list, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then credential caveats — well ordered with no filler. A couple of phrases ('pass organizationId on one paid create') are slightly compressed but still parseable.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema already present, and read-only annotations, this description covers everything an agent needs: what comes back, when to call it, which sibling to use next, and why results may be limited.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description could add about inputs. It does clarify the meaning of the isCurrent output marker, but that belongs more to output documentation than parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the Sync organizations this connection can act in') and states what each entry carries (role, plan) plus the isCurrent marker. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like organizations_select or projects_list.

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?

It gives the triggering conditions ('when the user names an organization or team, or asks where work is created') and names the follow-up alternatives: organizations_select, or passing organizationId on a paid create. It also states the out-of-band fix (reconnect Sync and tick the organization) when the desired org is missing.

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