list_authn_mappings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List' which implies read-only, but does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. Additional behavioral context is needed.

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 very concise with two short sentences, no unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing parameter and behavioral details.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, pagination, or parameter roles, making it incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 schema has 4 parameters (page_size, page_number, sort, filter_query) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention any parameters or explain their semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'authentication mappings' with specific context (SAML/OIDC) and explains what they are (maps identity provider attributes to Datadog roles). It distinguishes from sibling list tools which cover different resources.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use advice. The purpose implies usage for viewing auth mappings, but lacks comparative context with other list tools.

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