get_codelens_mappings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool reads data ('Get') but provides no details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Behavioral traits beyond reading are absent.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and usage context. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Simple tool with no parameters, purpose and context are adequately described. Lacks explicit statement that it requires no arguments, but this is implied by the schema. Without an output schema, the return type is only vaguely described as 'mappings'.

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 has zero parameters, so the description correctly omits parameter details. Baseline score of 4 applies as no parameter information is needed beyond what the schema (empty) provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves 'merged CodeLens pattern-to-specialist mappings from all active layers' and specifies its use by a VSCode extension. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_al_code' or 'list_specialists' by focusing on CodeLens functionality.

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?

Indicates the tool is used by the VSCode extension to show inline specialist suggestions, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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