balena_get_organization

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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds the useful behavioral point that the result is a single organization rather than a collection. It does not go further to describe error behavior or return shape, but given the rich annotation profile, the description provides enough additional context for this simple getter.

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 entire description is one short sentence that front-loads the operation and resource; there is no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter getter backed by readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the identifying parameter, and the singular result. The only omitted detail is an explicit statement of the return payload, and there is no output schema to compensate, but the tool's simplicity keeps this a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; 'by numeric ID' correctly maps to the sole organization_id parameter and underscores its numeric nature. However, it adds no new semantics beyond what the parameter name and integer type already convey, and it doesn't explain how to discover the ID or what constraints apply (though schema covers bounds).

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('one organization'), and the lookup key ('numeric ID'), making it immediately distinct from the list-oriented siblings such as balena_list_organizations. It fully expresses the single-entity intent and matches the sole required parameter, organization_id.

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 implicitly signals when to use the tool—when a caller has a numeric organization ID and wants exactly one organization—but it never names alternatives or says when not to use it. Sibling tools like balena_list_organizations and balena_query_resource are not mentioned, so the agent must infer routing from the phrase 'by numeric ID'.

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