github_check_org_sso

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'check' which implies a read operation but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 (two sentences) with no wasted words. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the purpose more explicitly, but it is efficient overall.

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 simple check with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks information about the return format or what the detection code 'ORG-004' means for downstream use, which limits completeness.

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 single parameter 'org' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's 'GitHub organization name'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as no extra value is provided.

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 the action (check), resource (SSO/SAML single sign-on for the organization), and includes a specific detection code (ORG-004). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_check_org_members or github_check_org_security, which focus on different 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or what the detection code indicates for decision-making.

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