list_orgs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that results are filtered by the authenticated account's membership, which is meaningful context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens if the account belongs to zero orgs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to scope and resource identity.

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 or annotations, the description covers what is needed to select and invoke it. Only the return shape/count semantics are left implicit, a minor gap.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing schema-level left for the description to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (developer organizations) with an explicit scope: only those the logged-in account belongs to. That scope distinguishes it from siblings like list_apps, list_channels and list_test_users, though it does not name a near-neighbor alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'the logged-in account belongs to' implies when this tool applies (identity-scoped discovery) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as select_org or auth_status.

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