get_mapping

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses safe, read-only behavior and guaranteed success, which provides good transparency for a zero-parameter tool. It does not detail edge cases but is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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: two sentences plus a bullet-like return value listing. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the tool's purpose, safety, and return fields (git_branch, keboola_branch_id, linked, is_production). No gaps are apparent for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has no parameters, so the description adds no parameter details beyond the schema. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adequately focuses on the tool's action and return value.

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 the tool retrieves the Keboola branch mapping for the current git branch. It uses specific verbs and resource naming, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like list_mappings or link_branch.

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 explicitly notes it is a safe, read-only operation that always succeeds, guiding appropriate use. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like list_mappings or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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