Get message mappings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds that it 'Supports listing and $top,' which gives some behavioral context about pagination/limiting, but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior beyond $top, or any other side effects. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. 'Get all message mappings.' is front-loaded and clear, and 'Supports listing and $top.' adds a relevant detail without unnecessary words.

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?

With 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is noticeably incomplete. It names only $top and gives no information about filtering, sorting, selecting fields, or what a message mapping looks like. The agent cannot confidently use the advanced query 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions only '$top' but does not explain its meaning (e.g., maximum number of results). The parameters skip, filter, select, and orderby are entirely unaddressed, leaving the agent without adequate semantic guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all message mappings.' The word 'all' hints at a full listing as opposed to the sibling search_message_mappings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from that sibling. Thus it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Get all message mappings' implies this tool is for retrieving the full set of mappings, contrasting with search_message_mappings. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of alternatives. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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