github_interactions_get_restrictions_for_org

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, what happens if no restrictions are set, or rate limits. The term 'interaction restrictions' is not explained, leaving the agent without crucial context about the tool's effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be overly terse, sacrificing completeness for conciseness.

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 lack of an output schema and the presence of multiple closely related sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what an 'interaction restriction' is, what the return value contains, or provide examples, limiting the agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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 100% (only 'org' parameter), but the schema description is minimal (just 'org'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 interaction restrictions for an organization' clearly states the action ('get') and the resource ('interaction restrictions for an organization'). It is specific enough to differentiate from siblings that target repos or users, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the similar siblings for repos or authenticated users. No prerequisites or context are provided, leaving the agent without decision support for selecting the correct variant.

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