get_transform_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds 'including its field mappings' as a return-content detail, but does not disclose potential edge cases, permissions, or output structure. This is adequate given the read-only nature, but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers all essential information. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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?

It's a simple read-only getter with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers what it returns at a high level ('details...including its field mappings'). Given the tool's simplicity, this is mostly complete, though a bit more detail on the response structure would be useful.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter, explicitly stating 'Transform Map sys_id or name'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Transform Map'), and even specifies the scope ('including its field mappings'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transform_maps (list) and run_transform_map (execute), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for retrieving details of a single Transform Map when you have its sys_id or name, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like list_transform_maps or list_transform_field_maps. No exclusions or direct alternative guidance is provided.

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