get_org_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Return'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it returns a single config or a list. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and directly communicates what the tool does. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and the returned 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 the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain how to identify the 'specific Org Config' (e.g., by ID or name), what the return format looks like, or any error handling. For a read operation with no annotations, more context about the retrieval mechanism would be helpful, though the simplicity of the tool keeps it from being severely inadequate.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is given because the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Return the name, description, and value of a specific Org Config.' It specifies the verb ('Return') and the resource ('Org Config'), including what fields are returned. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_org' or 'get_org_configs'—the description implies retrieving a single config but doesn't clarify how it differs from those other get operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for 'specific Org Config,' or how to identify which config to retrieve. With many sibling tools (including 'get_org_configs' for multiple configs), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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