project_mappings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List ... from PROJECTS_CONFIG', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention response format, potential errors, or whether it requires any configuration. It gives minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a parameter-less tool, though it could be slightly more descriptive without becoming verbose. It's on the minimal side but not under-specified.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not explain what the output looks like, what 'mappings' entails, or any edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minimum viable description that could benefit from a note about the return structure.

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 zero parameters (schema is an empty object), and schema description coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. The description adds nothing here, but none is needed.

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 action ('List') and the object (local domain/client mappings) with a specific source (PROJECTS_CONFIG). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like project_lookup, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over siblings. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and description.

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