misp_get_organisation

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Get details' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error handling, or response format. The description carries the full burden but fails to provide sufficient transparency.

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, concise sentence that efficiently states the purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required param, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks behavioral context and could mention return format or error cases.

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 100% with a single parameter described as 'Organisation ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific MISP organisation', distinguishing it from sibling tools like misp_list_organisations which lists all organisations.

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 usage when details of a specific organisation are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use, nor mentions alternatives.

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