get_remotepathmapping_by_id

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and parameter location, but says nothing about error handling, required permissions, or return behavior beyond what annotations and schema already tersely convey. Since annotations exist, the bar is lower and this is acceptable.

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 brief and free of filler: a one‑line purpose, an endpoint line, and an argument clarification. All content is relevant and easy to scan. It could arguably be condensed further, but for an API tool the structure is clean and efficient.

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 that the tool has a single required parameter, has an output schema, and has annotations covering read-only/behavior, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. It names the endpoint and the path parameter. Appreciably, it doesn't explain what a RemotePathMapping is or any of the return traits, but that lower gap is minimal because the JSON output schema provides the structure.

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 has 0% description coverage for 'id', and the description only says 'id: Path parameter.' This adds that the value goes in the request path, which is mildly useful but already implied by the endpoint. It does not explain what the ID represents or any constraints, so the description only marginally compensates for the schema's lack of explanatory text.

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 the verb 'Read' and names the resource 'RemotePathMapping', which states a concrete operation. The endpoint GET /api/v3/remotepathmapping/{id} makes clear it fetches a single instance by ID, differentiating it from list operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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. It doesn't mention list_remotepathmapping for bulk retrieval, get_by_path for path-based lookup, or suggest any exclusions. A callable agent must rely on the tool name and endpoint alone.

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