validate_mappings

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only (likely safe) or has any side effects. The description mentions 'reports' but does not specify the output format or where results appear, leaving the agent uncertain about behavioral outcomes.

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 sentence with two concise clauses, front-loading the primary action. Every word adds value, no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential action and output types but does not clarify how results are returned or how to interpret them. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity about the report format.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty object). The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool checks and reports, which is the relevant semantic context for the parameterless action, meeting the baseline for 0 parameters.

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 (check current mappings) and resource (Glean entity model), and specifies the types of issues reported (missing required fields, type mismatches). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mappings (retrieval) and infer_schema (schema discovery).

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 implies the tool should be used to validate mappings before confirming or after changes, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, which is acceptable given the parameterless nature and distinct purpose.

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