get_organ

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose any side effects, return structure details, or potential constraints beyond the basic operation of returning a template. This is insufficient given the lack of annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a brief docstring-style format with args section. No wasted sentences, though it could be slightly more efficient.

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 role in multi-agent orchestration and the existence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the organ template contains or how it should be used. It lacks completeness for a tool at this complexity level.

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 only parameter 'name' has a default and title in schema. The description adds an example ('debate_council') and explains its purpose as an organ identifier. With 0% schema coverage, this adds value but still lacks full semantic details.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns an organ template for multi-agent orchestration at Layer 4. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the role (combines programs and cells) and complex tasks, which differentiates it from similar tools like get_cell_protocol or get_molecular_template.

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?

It provides context on when to use (complex tasks requiring multi-perspective analysis or collaborative reasoning) and gives an example argument ('debate_council'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare directly to sibling tools.

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