org_get

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by naming the fields returned and documenting the default-resolution behavior when org_id/target are omitted. It does not describe error behavior when an id is not found, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences plus a tight Args block; the read nature and resource are front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, parameter meanings, and default fallbacks, which is close to complete. Missing only edge-case/error behavior and an explicit pointer to the sibling list tool.

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% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden and does so: it defines org_id as the Meraki organization id and target as a config target name, plus the default behavior for each. It stops short of giving an id format or example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One organization by id') and enumerates the returned fields (name, url, api access, cloud region). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling org_list by emphasizing a single org, but never names the alternative explicitly.

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 explains how to fall back to defaults ('omit to use the target's default org'), which is useful context, but it never states when to pick org_get over org_list or org_licensing, leaving the alternative-selection decision to inference.

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