list_organizations

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

The description implies a read-only operation but provides no explicit behavioral details such as authentication requirements, pagination, or data scope. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only states the action.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

While the tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details about response format, pagination, or whether it lists all organizations or only user-accessible ones. It is minimally sufficient but leaves room for clarification.

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, and the schema coverage is effectively complete (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 tool lists organizations in Bugsnag, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects and list_errors by the resource type.

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 list_projects or search_issues. It does not mention any exclusions or preferred contexts.

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