channels_mappings

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

The description implies a read-only operation with the word 'Show', and there is no contradiction with missing annotations. However, no additional behavioral details (e.g., permissions, rate limits, or side effects) are disclosed, leaving the agent with minimal insight beyond the basic action.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, stating the tool's purpose directly.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the return format or the nature of 'point-to-instance mappings', which would help an agent understand the output without additional context.

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% (channel_id described as 'Channel ID'), and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema. The tool's single parameter is adequately documented in the schema, so a baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Show' and the resource 'channel's point-to-instance mappings', giving a specific purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like channels_points (general points) and channels_points_mapping (mapping operations), but does not elaborate on what the mappings are.

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?

No information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as channels_points_mapping or channels_unmapped_points. The description gives no contextual guidance or use cases.

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