list_input_mapping_contexts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'list' without disclosing that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or any performance considerations. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 two concise sentences: first states the action and resource, second lists return fields. Every sentence serves a purpose with 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits crucial details about parameter behavior (e.g., path defaults, filter syntax, recursive scope, max_results limit). For a tool with 0% schema description coverage, this leaves agents unprepared to use parameters correctly.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'optionally filtered' but does not describe the four parameters (path, filter, recursive, max_results), their defaults, or usage. The description adds almost no value beyond the schema itself.

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 states it lists UInputMappingContext assets with optional filtering, and its name distinguishes it from siblings like list_input_actions (which lists actions) and get_input_mapping_context (which retrieves a single context). The verb 'List' and resource 'UInputMappingContext assets' are specific and clear.

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 listing input mapping contexts but does not explicitly compare it to other list tools (e.g., list_assets, find_assets) or provide when-to-use vs alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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