org_get

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

The '[READ]' tag hints at read-only behavior, but with no annotations, the description could be more explicit about safety (no side effects), permissions, or rate limits. It discloses returned fields but not other behavioral traits.

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: a clear headline with returned fields followed by structured parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, efficiently front-loaded.

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 no output schema, description covers return fields and parameter defaults. Could mention error handling (e.g., not found) but is largely sufficient for a simple get tool with two optional parameters.

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 description compensates by explaining both parameters: org_id (Meraki org id, omit for default) and target (target name from config, omit for default). This adds meaning beyond the schema's anyOf type and default null.

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 starts with '[READ]' indicating read-only, states 'One organization by id', and lists returned fields (name, url, api access, cloud region). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like org_list which lists multiple organizations.

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?

Description includes parameter defaults (omit for default org/target) giving some usage context, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like org_list or org_admins. Implied usage is present but not fully clarified.

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