get_mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as retrieving field mappings for discovery purposes, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't disclose details like response format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be improved. It explains the tool's purpose and high-level use case but doesn't cover what the output looks like (e.g., structure of field mappings) or potential limitations. For a discovery tool, more details on the return format would enhance completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'environment' parameter fully documented including enum values and descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the 'index' context or field mapping details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the field mapping for the index' specifies both the action (get) and resource (field mapping). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'get_field_values' or 'search_by_field' by focusing on metadata discovery rather than data retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

The description provides implied usage guidance: 'Useful for discovering available fields and their types' suggests this tool should be used for schema exploration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_field_values' (which might retrieve actual values) or when not to use it, nor does it mention prerequisites. This is adequate but lacks explicit differentiation.

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