make_list_organizations

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

The description indicates that the tool lists organizations accessible by the token, implying a read operation. However, no explicit disclosure of behavior beyond the list itself, such as whether it requires special permissions or has rate limits. No annotations are provided, so the description carries this burden but is somewhat lacking.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and key output, making it easy to scan.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, output, and usage context. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. The baseline of 4 applies as the description adequately handles the absence of parameters.

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 'List all Make.com organizations', specifying the verb (list) and the resource (organizations). It also mentions what it returns ('id + name'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with scenarios, executions, etc.

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 includes explicit guidance: 'Use this first if you don't know the organization_id.' This tells the agent when to use this tool, setting a clear prerequisite. However, no explicit 'when not to use' is provided.

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