github_orgs_get_org_role

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying read-only, but does not describe side effects, permissions, or any constraints. The agent is left unaware of what to expect.

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 concise at four words, but it is overly terse. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices necessary detail for a minimum viable description.

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 output schema and the need to identify a specific role, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not explain that the role_id can be obtained from 'list_org_roles', nor does it describe the return value structure.

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% but parameter descriptions are just the parameter names ('org', 'role_id'), adding no meaning. The description does not elaborate on the format, source, or purpose of these parameters, falling short of compensating for the poor schema descriptions.

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 role' clearly states the verb and resource but is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_org_roles' which also deal with organization roles.

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 such as 'list_org_roles' or 'assign_team_to_org_role'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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