github_private_registries_get_org_public_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Get … public key'. It omits important behavioral traits such as permission requirements, return format, or potential side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous words or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about the key's purpose (e.g., for encrypting secrets), typical usage, or any prerequisites. For a simple get tool, it meets basic needs but leaves agents uninformed about the broader context.

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% (1 parameter), so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the parameter 'org' is described only as 'org' in both schema and description, so no additional value.

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 clearly states the verb (Get), resource (private registries public key), and scope (for an organization). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'github_actions_get_org_public_key' or 'github_codespaces_get_org_public_key' by specifying 'private_registries'.

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 (e.g., other get_org_public_key tools). The description does not mention usage context or exclusions.

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