fragmentMappings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe permissions, rate limits, side effects, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with three required parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity (three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks purpose differentiation, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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%, meaning parameters 'url', 'type', and 'name' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, their meanings, formats, or constraints. This leaves the agent guessing about required inputs.

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 'Retrieves fragment mappings' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'fragmentMappings' without adding meaningful context. It specifies a verb ('Retrieves') but lacks details on what fragment mappings are, what resource they relate to, or how they differ from sibling tools like 'objectStructure' or 'featureDetails'. This provides minimal 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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'objectStructure', 'featureDetails', 'findDefinition'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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