get_org_permissions

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the required admin:org scope, the API endpoint format, and the exact return structure with fields and types. This provides sufficient transparency for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and authorization needs.

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 concise with three focused sentences covering purpose, endpoint, return format, and required scope. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple read tool with one self-explanatory parameter, the description provides all essential information: purpose, scope, and return schema. No output schema exists, but the description compensates with the return structure.

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 description does not describe the 'org' parameter beyond its name. While the parameter is self-explanatory, the schema has 0% description coverage, and the description should have added context (e.g., the organization slug or login). This gap lowers the score.

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 tool retrieves the Copilot coding-agent repo-access setting for an org. It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_org_permissions or enable/disable operations.

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 a read operation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_org_enabled_repos or set_org_permissions. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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