get_userid_mappings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the concrete executed command, 'show user ip-user-mapping all', which reveals the exact backend behavior and the 'all' scope. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss output size or pagination.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the read-only marker, states the action, and includes the exact command—every sentence contributes value.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter fully documented in the schema, the description is sufficient. It states what is returned, the scope, and the underlying command. Minor gaps exist around output shape or potential large result sets, but these are not critical for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the firewall parameter is already fully documented. The description does not add additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('IP-to-user mappings from User-ID'), and clarifies scope ('all'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like get_userid_groups and get_userid_config, which concern different User-ID aspects.

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 usage context is implied by the stated purpose—use when you need IP-to-user mappings—but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not name alternative tools such as userid_lookup or get_userid_config. The description provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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