afl_matches_idmap

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

With no annotations, the description provides the return structure and size (~48 KB), which aids transparency. However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The explicit return format is a strong point.

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 sentence plus a return example. It is very concise and front-loads the purpose. Every word adds 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?

The description provides a complete example of the return structure and size. Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand what it does and what it returns.

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?

There are no input parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context by explaining the mapping purpose, which meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 maps match provider IDs to integer IDs, with a specific example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'afl_matches_list' and 'afl_match_get' by focusing solely on ID mapping.

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 the tool is for getting ID mappings, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'afl_players_idmap' or 'afl_teams_idmap'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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