get_default_org

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description discloses non-obvious output behavior: only the alias is returned, a username-less org yields a masked username plus an alias hint, and usernames, org IDs and instance URLs are never returned. This is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return-value contract. No filler or redundancy; each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description must define the return value, and it does so precisely (alias, or masked username plus hint, with explicit exclusions). For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add on parameter semantics, and it correctly does not invent any.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the current default target org configured in the Salesforce CLI') with clear scope. The read-only framing implicitly separates it from set_default_org and clear_default_org, but no sibling is named explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 notes the alias 'is used as the default when no targetOrg is specified in other tool calls', which implies the context in which this lookup matters. It gives no explicit when-not guidance and never points to alternatives such as set_default_org, clear_default_org, or list_connected_salesforce_orgs.

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