get_org_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose whether special permissions are required, if results are sensitive, or the structure of the response. This is minimally acceptable.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists the categories of settings. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, with 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It enumerates the categories of settings, but does not detail the exact structure or nesting. For a simple retrieval, this is sufficient.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema covers 100% of parameter semantics. The description adds value by listing what the settings include, which helps the agent understand the output without needing parameter details.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all organization settings', and lists specific categories such as email, alerts, timeouts, feature flags, and PR comment config. No sibling tool covers settings, so it is easily distinguishable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide alternatives. However, since no sibling tool retrieves settings, usage is implicitly clear. No exclusions or context are given.

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