inspect_input_mappings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('dump') and lists the data returned, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or discuss any prerequisites or side effects. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first efficiently details the output, and the second emphasizes its importance. No wasteful or redundant information.

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?

For a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and its relevance. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating it is a read-only operation, but overall it is sufficient.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% automatically. The description adds no parameter information because none are needed. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.

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 explicitly states that the tool dumps legacy UInputSettings (action_mappings and axis_mappings with specific fields) and a migration flag. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling inspect tools, which focus on other asset types or aspects.

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 claims this is '#1 context needed before touching gameplay code,' strongly implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, so it is not a full 5.

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