List organizations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (name, baseURL, slug) and the significance of the slug as the `organization` parameter for other tools. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but 'List' implies it, and the useful context about slug mapping goes beyond a minimal list definition.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence provides distinct value: what is listed, what fields are returned, and why the slug matters. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It states the resource, the accessible scope, the return fields, and how the output connects to other tools. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The baseline of 4 applies here.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organizations'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_roles and list_teams. It also explains the tool's role as the entry point for cross-organization tasks, which adds purpose beyond a generic 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?

The description states when to use this tool ('entry point for any cross-organization task'), providing clear context. It does not need to mention alternatives because no sibling tool lists organizations, but it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause, preventing a perfect score.

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