get_org_structure

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

With no annotations supplied the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does state the operation is read-only and that holders/deputies are appointed by an admin in the app — so the agent knows it cannot mutate org data here and should not look for write paths. It omits size/ordering of the returned structure and whether the whole organization or a scoped slice is returned.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the actionable detail (the rule-target format) and then the read-only caveat. No filler, no repetition of the name, and each sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (positions, functions, node ids, holders, deputies) and how to use it (as rule targets), plus the mutation boundary. That is enough for an agent to call it correctly without further documentation.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description usefully confirms the call is parameter-free by implying a whole-org read, and no parameter meaning is missing.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the organization structure (the org map)', then enumerates the payload — positions, functions, node ids, holders, deputies. That is far more concrete than a title restatement, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearby get_map/get_portfolio reads, so an agent must infer that 'org map' means the org chart rather than a map object.

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?

It gives downstream usage guidance rather than a bare read instruction: the returned node ids are meant to be used as dynamic rule targets in the 'position:<nodeId>' / 'deputy_of_position:<nodeId>' form, which tells the agent when this tool is the right prerequisite (before create_rule/list_rules work on positions). It stops short of naming any alternative tool or stating when not to call it.

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