github_check_org_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'Audit' suggesting a read-only operation, but does not confirm non-destructiveness or clarify the output format. The mention of detection IDs (ORG-007, ORG-008) hints at compliance checks but lacks detail on behavior beyond what is implied.

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 with two sentences: first states the action, second lists detected issues. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description provides minimal but adequate context for the tool's purpose. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or permissions required, which could leave gaps for an agent.

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 100% for the single parameter 'org', which is well-described as 'GitHub organization name'. The description adds no further param semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 it audits OAuth app authorizations and GitHub App installations for the organization, and specifies detection of ORG-007 and ORG-008. This verb+resource+scope is distinct from sibling tools that check other aspects like members, branch protection, etc.

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 for auditing app authorizations and installations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_check_app_permissions or github_audit_report. The naming convention provides some context, but more explicit guidance would improve usability.

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