github_actions_get_allowed_actions_organization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permission requirements, error scenarios, or response format. A minimal read-only indication is implied but not explicit.

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 short sentence, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the response contains (e.g., list of allowed actions), potential errors, or usage constraints. For a simple getter, it is marginally adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has one parameter 'org' with description 'org', which is just the name. Since schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'allowed actions and reusable workflows', and the scope 'for an organization'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_allowed_actions_repository' (organization vs repository) and 'set_allowed_actions_organization' (get vs set).

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, such as 'set_allowed_actions_organization' for modifications or 'get_allowed_actions_repository' for a repository scope. No explicit context or exclusions are given.

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