suggest_type_mappings

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 clearly states that the tool scans all registered projects, identifies exact and similar name matches, and describes the autoRegister side effect (registering HIGH confidence matches with exactly 2 occurrences). This is substantial transparency for a tool with read and optional write behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful detail. It is not overly verbose, though the third sentence could be seen as slightly redundant with the schema's autoRegister description. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the scanning scope, confidence levels, the auto-registration side effect, and the intended use case. It does not detail return values, but given the schema covers parameter semantics and this is a suggestion tool, the description is sufficient.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds value by elaborating on the autoRegister parameter ('Set autoRegister=true to automatically register HIGH confidence matches') and clarifying the confidence parameter's meaning. This goes beyond the schema's baseline, earning a 4.

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 ('Auto-detect potential type mappings') and clearly identifies the resource (registered projects), distinguishing it from sibling tools like register_type_mappings (manual registration) and check_type_mapping (checking existing mappings). It also explains the confidence levels and auto-registration behavior, fully clarifying the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to quickly populate the type mapping registry without manual discovery.' It implies a contrast with manual registration tools and provides guidance on confidence levels. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of the highest tier.

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