list_organization_departments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that lists organizational data.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's 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 complexity of listing organizational departments, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, pagination), doesn't explain the optional 'parentId' parameter's effect, and provides no information on the return structure, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('organizationId' and 'parentId') with their types and requirements. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as explaining how 'parentId' might filter results hierarchically. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get the list') and resource ('departments in an organization'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_organization_department_info' or 'get_organization_department_ancestors', which appear to be related but more specific operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_organization_department_info' (which might retrieve details of a single department) or 'get_organization_department_ancestors' (which might fetch hierarchical data), leaving the agent without context for selection.

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