Api frameworks mapping stats retrieve

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

The description claims the endpoint allows frameworks to be 'edited', while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false for a retrieve endpoint. Nothing is said about what statistics are returned or their scope.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no bloat, but the content is generic boilerplate rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, so brevity does not translate into 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?

With no output schema, an opaque id parameter, and no annotation-level detail added, the description leaves the agent unable to know what data comes back or how the id is interpreted. Far from complete for even a simple retrieve endpoint.

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 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description does not explain what the id identifies (framework id? mapping set id?) or its format. The description must compensate here and does not.

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 says only that frameworks can be 'viewed or edited', which restates the API-endpoint framing without stating what this specific tool returns. The tool name indicates mapping statistics retrieval, yet the description never mentions mappings or stats, and it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling frameworks_mappings_retrieve.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus frameworks_retrieve, frameworks_mappings_retrieve, or frameworks_object_retrieve. 'Viewed or edited' actively misdirects rather than guiding selection.

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