input_mapping_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The term 'Inspect' implies read-only behavior, but the description doesn't explicitly state that no modifications are made, what the return format is, or behavior when no filters are supplied. This is a notable gap, but the inspection nature is somewhat self-evident.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives a practical use case. All content earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential purpose and a concrete use case, but it does not describe return values or behavior with no filters. This leaves moderate ambiguity, making it minimally complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Exact key name to filter, such as Escape'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a combined example of action and key (PF_Pause to Escape), which provides some relational context but no additional semantic detail beyond schema descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Inspect Unreal input action and axis mappings.' It distinguishes from siblings input_mapping_add/remove by focusing on inspection, and gives a concrete example (PF_Pause to Escape) to illustrate the purpose.

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?

Provides a specific use case: 'Use this to validate bindings like PF_Pause to Escape when physical key injection is unavailable.' This states when to use but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it falls short of a fully explicit guideline.

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