get_input_mapping_context

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the deprecation trap where InputMappingContext.mappings silently returns an EMPTY list, and the fact that IMC assets store no priority because it is supplied at AddMappingContext. Those are the kind of failure modes an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, then the sibling routing, then the pitfall warning, then returns. Every sentence carries information, though the heavy parentheticals and em-dash asides make it denser than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by spelling out the return payload (context_path, context_name, mappings with action_name/key/key_name, mapping_count). Combined with the trap warning and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents context_path fully. The description adds return-shape detail (the FKey name used by map_input_action) but nothing about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read ONE Enhanced Input mapping context asset (IMC)') and bounds the scope to 'every action-to-key mapping it declares'. It also names the sibling it is not, list_all_input_mappings, so an agent can distinguish single-asset reads from project-wide scans without opening either 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?

It gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use list_all_input_mappings for the project-wide which keys are taken / which conflict question.' The one-asset scope is also front-loaded, so the when-to-use boundary is unambiguous.

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