list_transform_field_maps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it lists mappings within a transform map but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination or response format. This matches the calibration baseline for a simple list operation with annotations.

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 that directly states the purpose without any extraneous words. It is optimally concise.

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 list tool with two parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states the action and target. It does not explain what 'field-level mappings' are, but that is domain knowledge. It could have added a note about pagination or sorting, but the schema covers the limit parameter, making it sufficiently complete.

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 100%, and both parameters are well-described in the schema ('Parent Transform Map sys_id' and 'Max records to return (default 50)'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'field-level mappings within a Transform Map'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_transform_maps and get_transform_map by focusing on the field-level mappings within a specific transform map.

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: you would call this when you need to see the field mappings inside a particular transform map. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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