fragmentMappings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation without details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, this lacks critical behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions.

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 3 required parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what fragment mappings are, how to use the parameters, or what to expect in return, leaving the tool's functionality ambiguous.

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 0%, so parameters 'url', 'type', and 'name' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about what these parameters represent, their formats, or examples, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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' restates the tool name 'fragmentMappings' with a generic verb 'Retrieves', making it tautological. It doesn't specify what fragment mappings are, what resource they belong to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'objectStructure', leaving the purpose vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for data retrieval (e.g., 'findDefinition', 'objectStructure', 'nodeContents'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it misleadingly simplistic.

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