opensearch_get_mapping

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that nested fields are returned flattened to dot-notation, which is a key behavioral detail. It also implies the operation is read-only and requires specific permissions. Lacks mention of error formats or pagination, but the output schema provides additional structure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second provides the alternative and behavioral detail.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, and a key behavioral trait. The sibling tool is mentioned, providing full context.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'index' is well-described in the schema. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states 'see all field names and types', specifying the verb 'see' and resource 'field names and types'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool opensearch_discover_fields by explaining the permission difference and data scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'if you get 403 use opensearch_discover_fields instead'. Also explains the privilege difference (indices:admin/mappings/get vs search privilege), giving clear context for selection.

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