index_mapping

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

The description implies a read operation but does not clarify what happens if the index does not exist, the format of the mapping returned, or whether dynamic/runtime fields are included. No annotations are present to supplement this gap.

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 concise (one sentence) but at the cost of clarity. It could be expanded to include key details without losing brevity (e.g., 'Retrieve the field mapping/schema for a specific index').

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the output schema, usage context, or differentiation from similar tools.

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 sole parameter 'index' is not described in the description or schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying that 'index' is the name of the index whose mapping is to be retrieved. It does not.

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 the tool returns 'field mapping/schema for an index', which is a specific resource. However, the phrasing is vague and could be interpreted as either returning the mapping or validating a schema. No distinction is made from related siblings like list_indices or search_dsl.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_indices (to list all indices) or malcolm_field_search (to search field values). The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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