github_check_org_members

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

No annotations provided. Description only states 'audit' without disclosing whether it is read-only, required permissions, or side effects. For a check tool, it likely is read-only, but this is not confirmed.

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?

Very concise two-sentence description. Front-loaded with action verb and resource. Could include a bit more context, but no wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple check tool with one parameter and no output schema. Specifies purpose and detection IDs, but lacks explanation of what 'audit' entails (e.g., output format, pagination).

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% for the single 'org' parameter, which is well-described. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool audits organization members, focusing on outside collaborators and member activity, and specifies detection IDs ORG-005 and ORG-006. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that check other aspects.

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?

Implies usage for specific detection rules (ORG-005, ORG-006), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., github_check_collaborators). No when-not or context provided.

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