get_module_mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not state what happens if no mapping exists, whether matching is exact, or whether any permissions are required.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args section is useful because the schema has no parameter descriptions. The docstring-style formatting is slightly rough, but there is little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a lookup tool with no annotations and many sibling tools, the description leaves gaps around when to use it versus taxonomy/terminology tools and how to interpret a missing mapping.

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 the description must define the parameters. It does so meaningfully: source_module includes examples like 'CLM' and 'AE Reporting', and area lists values such as 'crm' and 'safety-pv' with the default 'crm'. The area values are not fully enumerated, but the added semantic value is substantial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the target platform equivalent for a source module.' This is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from related lookup tools such as get_taxonomy or get_terminology.

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 provides area choices and example source modules, which imply how the tool is used. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of sibling tools, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.

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