Get index mappings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by specifying the output format (dotted paths with types, then raw mapping) and the alias/wildcard caveat, which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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 compact sentences front-load the tool's output behavior and then give the critical input constraint. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 simple one-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what the response contains, when a call will succeed, and when it will return nothing.

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 fully documents the single 'index' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by requiring a concrete index and warning that aliases and wildcards yield no results, which is not inferable from the schema alone.

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 action ('List the fields of one index as dotted paths with their types') and a concrete resource ('one index'), and it distinguishes the tool by noting nested fields are included and the raw mapping follows. This separates get_mappings from siblings like get_index_template or field_caps without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 gives clear operational guidance: pass a concrete index name, and avoid aliases or wildcards because they return nothing. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the precondition and failure mode are actionable enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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