github_check_org_security

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether checks are read-only. Only says 'checks' and 'detects', which is minimal behavioral info.

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, zero waste. Front-loaded with verb and resource, then lists key check categories and detection IDs. Efficiently communicates core purpose.

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?

For a check tool with no output schema, listing detection IDs (ORG-001 etc.) provides useful context about return value semantics. However, lacks explanation of what those IDs mean or how results are structured. Still fairly complete given simplicity.

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% with description 'GitHub organization name' already in schema. Tool description adds no extra context about the parameter (e.g., format, case sensitivity, required role).

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 verb 'Check' and resource 'organization security settings', enumerates specific aspects (2FA enforcement, default repo visibility, member privileges) and links to detection IDs (ORG-001 etc.). Distinguishes from many sibling check tools by specificity.

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 use for checking org security but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., github_check_org_members, github_audit_report). No exclusion criteria or alternative names mentioned.

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