es_get_mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It indicates a read-only inspection operation but does not disclose potential error cases (e.g., non-existent index) or response behavior. Since it is a simple get-mapping tool, the basic behavior is transparent, but not deeply disclosed.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose plus a single-argument explanation. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.

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 tool with one simple parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what the index parameter means. Additional behavioral details are not necessary for this straightforward operation.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explicitly explains the only parameter: 'index: The index name to inspect.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's 'title: Index' and is sufficient given the single parameter.

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's function: 'Show the field mapping (schema) for an Elasticsearch index.' It uses a specific verb (show) and resource (field mapping of an index), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_elasticsearch or es_list_indices.

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 used to inspect an index's schema but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or any exclusions. This gives clear context but lacks directional advice.

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