IndexMappingTool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the operation ('Retrieves') without mentioning that it is read-only, what happens if the index does not exist, whether settings are included in the response, or any authentication side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core operation in a compact form, though it may be overly terse given the tool's 11 parameters and lack of other context.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not clarify return values, error behavior, or how this tool relates to siblings. An agent would have to infer many important details solely from parameter names, leaving the description incomplete for safe and correct 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but since all parameters are documented individually in the schema, the tool is still usable without additional parameter explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a clear resource ('index mapping and setting information for an index in OpenSearch'), which effectively distinguishes it from data-retrieval tools like SearchIndexTool. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous and specific enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ListIndexTool, SearchIndexTool, or GetShardsTool. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints beyond the implied use case of inspecting index metadata, so an agent receives no routing assistance.

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