org_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two operationally important traits: results are cached for a week and the first call hits the host's API taking roughly 15 seconds. That is exactly the kind of cost signal an agent needs before invoking it. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor what happens when the org cannot be resolved, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the content list is dense but each item is substantive, and the cost/caching caveat is placed at the end where it is still easy to find. The long comma-spliced enumeration and the trailing 'what new code for the org should be built with' clause make it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure is covered, and the caching/latency note addresses the main invocation risk. What is missing is any handling of the single parameter and any disambiguation from org_packages despite the description overlapping with it — gaps an agent would otherwise have to resolve by trial.

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?

There is one optional parameter, 'org', with a default of empty string and 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place its meaning could be established — yet it never mentions the parameter at all. An agent cannot tell from this text whether an empty value means 'current/default org', whether to pass an org slug or URL, or what happens on an invalid name.

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 enumerates concretely what the profile contains (languages, datastores, queues, frameworks, auth, test/deploy tooling, common libraries, shared packages) and frames it as 'what new code for the org should be built with', which tells an agent exactly what the resource is for. It falls short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling org_packages, and in fact claims to include 'the org's own shared packages', creating ambiguity about which tool owns that data.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'what new code for the org should be built with' — an agent can infer this is a pre-flight call before generating or reviewing code. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling is named, so the agent must guess how this differs from org_packages, repo_card, or search_org.

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