get_org

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', indicating a read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, potential 404 errors, or the shape of the response. This minimal information is insufficient for the agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get a GitHub organization by login.' It includes a direct link to official documentation for further details, with zero filler or redundancy, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (one required string parameter) and the schema fully documents that parameter. The description clearly states the action and includes a docs link for comprehensive reference. Although there is no output schema or explicit return-value description, the purpose is unambiguous and the documentation link fills the gap, making it sufficiently complete for this low-complexity tool.

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 input schema covers the only parameter 'org' with a clear description ('Organization login (e.g. "acme")'), so the schema already provides full parameter semantics. The description's phrase 'by login' adds nothing beyond what the schema states, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 a GitHub organization by its login, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('organization'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_by_username or list_org_members, which target different resources or actions.

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 that the tool is used when you have an organization's login and want to fetch its details, but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. For a simple read-only retrieval, this level of guidance is marginally adequate but lacks direct comparison with other org-related tools.

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