get_action_mappings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior beyond that: the data is legacy-only, it excludes Enhanced Input mapping contexts, and empty results are a false negative for 'no buttons bound'. It does not mention pagination, but the scope caveats are the meaningful disclosures here.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the differentiators, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical field list is dense and slightly crowds the scope caveat.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, which it does explicitly ({ action_name, key, shift, ctrl, alt, cmd, action_mappings, count }). Combined with the legacy-only scope and the empty-list caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs and instead spends its budget on scope and return shape.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the project's LEGACY action key mappings') and names the exact fields returned (action_name + key + shift/ctrl/alt/cmd). It also distinguishes itself from two siblings (get_input_settings and list_all_input_mappings), so an agent can separate it without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicit routing is given: use get_input_settings for actions+axes together, and use list_all_input_mappings when the question is 'is this key already taken'. It also supplies a when-not caveat (blind to Enhanced Input contexts; an empty list does not mean nothing is bound), which prevents a foreseeable misread.

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