bookshelf_get_remotepathmapping

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the behavioral nuance that it fetches a single item by id, clarifying scope beyond the bare read-only hint. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or return format details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the read-only hint, and the presence of an output schema (which describes return values), the description is largely complete. It could mention what happens if the id does not exist (e.g., 404), but that is a minor gap for a straightforward get-by-id 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?

The schema has only one parameter, 'id' (integer, required), with no description. The description clearly states the id is used to fetch a single remotepathmapping, giving semantic meaning to the parameter. It does not explain id's value range or additional constraints, but for a simple id this is sufficient.

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 'Fetch a single remotepathmapping by id' clearly specifies the action (fetch), resource (remotepathmapping), and scope (single by id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_remotepathmapping, create_remotepathmapping, update_remotepathmapping, and delete_remotepathmapping.

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 usage (when you need a specific remotepathmapping by id) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like list_remotepathmapping. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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