fragmentMappings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't describe what fragment mappings are, how they're returned (e.g., format, structure), any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with three required parameters.

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 extremely concise at just two words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves'), though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is insufficient.

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 complexity (three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what fragment mappings are, how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with undocumented inputs and no structured output definition, this minimal description fails to provide necessary 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?

The input schema has three required parameters (url, type, name) with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to retrieving fragment mappings. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Retrieves fragment mappings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'fragmentMappings' with a generic verb. It doesn't specify what fragment mappings are, what resource they belong to, or how they differ from similar operations. While it includes a verb ('retrieves'), it lacks specificity about the domain or context, making it only marginally better than a pure tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or relationships with sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'objectStructure' that might handle related data. There's no indication of appropriate contexts or exclusions for its use.

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