org_admins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly marks the operation as [READ], indicating non-destructive behavior, and lists the returned fields. This sufficiently discloses the tool's safety and scope.

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 extremely concise—three sentences including the Args block—with no unnecessary information. The purpose is front-loaded with the [READ] tag and key output fields.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns (name, email, access level) and how to use the parameters. It is adequate but could explicitly confirm the output contains only those fields.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It clearly explains org_id as a Meraki organization ID and target as a config name, adding essential context beyond the schema's empty descriptions.

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 explicitly states it is a READ operation for dashboard administrators, listing the returned fields (name, email, access level). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like org_list or org_get by focusing on admins.

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 guidance on omitting parameters for defaults, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, relying on implied context.

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