github_private_registries_get_org_private_registry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get' which indicates a read operation, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits, side effects) are disclosed. This is minimal and insufficient.

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 extremely concise—one sentence. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, it is so minimal that it barely earns its place; more detail could be added without sacrificing brevity.

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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, and the description is very short. It lacks details about what data the response contains, the role of 'secret_name', or any prerequisites. Given the large context of sibling tools, this is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 parameter descriptions, but those descriptions are just the parameter names ('org', 'secret_name'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 private registry for an organization' clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (private registry for an organization). It differentiates from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and update by implying a single retrieval operation.

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 implies usage by stating the action but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing registries. No exclusions or context are given, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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