github_get_org

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or any other behavioral traits. The simple 'Get' implies a read but no explicit safety or error context is given.

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 very concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a compact argument list. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any note on authentication, session prerequisites, or behavior around invalid org names, leaving some gaps for a tool that operates in a GitHub context. It covers the basics but does not fully elaborate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'org: Organization name' and 'session_name: GitHub session to use', which adds value beyond the bare schema type/title information. 'GitHub session to use' is slightly ambiguous but still explanatory.

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 organization information' clearly uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (organization), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_get_repo or github_get_user, as it doesn't specify what aspects of an organization 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, complementary tools, or scenarios where this is the appropriate choice is provided.

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