github_code_security_get_configuration

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, side effects, or return value structure. The description carries the full burden but offers virtually no transparency.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it lacks structure (e.g., no sections) and is under-specified for a tool with multiple siblings. It is adequately sized but not effectively structured.

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's simplicity (two parameters, read operation), the description does not explain what is returned (no output schema) or the scope (org-level). It leaves out important context that would help an agent understand the tool's role within the code security family.

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 description coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions (just 'org' and 'configuration_id') add no meaning beyond the names. The tool description does not provide additional parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 applies per guidelines.

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 'Get a code security configuration' is clear about the action and resource, but it is vague about the scope (org-level). Among many similar sibling tools (e.g., get_configuration_for_repository), it does not specify what kind of configuration this gets, leaving ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_configuration_for_repository or get_single_configuration_for_enterprise. The agent has no context to choose correctly among many similar code security get tools.

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