get_axis_mappings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral caveat — blindness to Enhanced Input contexts means an empty result is inconclusive — which is real value beyond the structured fields, though it doesn't discuss other traits like indexing cost or caching.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scoping constraint ('LEGACY ... only') before the caveat and the cross-references. The Returns line is compact and every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description supplies the return shape inline, the safety profile is covered by annotations, and the important limitation (blind to Enhanced Input) plus sibling alternatives are stated. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead documents the returned fields (axis_name, key, scale) which is a bonus, not a substitute.

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 (List) and resource (LEGACY axis key mappings), explicitly scopes it to the analog/movement half of the legacy input system, and names what it is not (Enhanced Input mapping contexts). An agent can distinguish it from get_action_mappings and list_all_input_mappings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names alternatives and the conditions that select them: get_input_settings returns actions and axes together, list_all_input_mappings covers both systems. It also gives a when-NOT-to-trust-it rule (empty list is not proof movement is unbound), which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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