github_orgs_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it gets an organization, implying a read operation, but does not mention required permissions, rate limits, what data is returned, or whether the result is cached. This is insufficient for a tool with no structural metadata.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it might be too brief given the lack of other explanatory content.

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 simple read operation with no output schema and one parameter, the description could be sufficient, but it omits details like whether it returns full organization details or just metadata. Additional context about typical use would improve completeness.

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 100% coverage, with one parameter 'org' described as 'org'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this tautological schema description. Baseline 3 applies since coverage is high, but the description does not enhance understanding.

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 an organization' clearly states the action (get) and resource (organization), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform create, update, delete, or list operations. However, it is very minimal and lacks specificity about what details are retrieved.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_orgs_list or github_orgs_get_membership. There is no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate.

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