sac_get_story_model_mapping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or has any constraints like rate limits. The process description is procedural but not behavioral.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and there is no unnecessary information.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of the tool's function and outcome. It could be improved by describing the return format or typical outputs, but it is generally complete.

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 describes the only parameter 'storyId' as 'The SAC story ID or name to resolve model mappings for', and the description does not add further details about the parameter (e.g., format, examples, or accepted patterns). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; no extra value added.

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 verb 'resolve' and the resource 'link between a SAC story and its underlying source model/CDS view name'. It also specifies what is cross-referenced and inferred, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like sac_get_story or sac_get_story_detail, which do not cover model mapping.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. It simply explains the function without contextual usage hints.

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