get_field_mapping

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

The description indicates a read-only inspection ('inspect') and reporting of conflicts, but lacks detail on error handling, permissions required, or behavior with non-existent fields. Without annotations, the description carries the burden and provides moderate transparency.

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, efficient sentence (12 words) with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded, though slightly terse for the number of parameters.

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 5 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description should provide more context on what 'mapping type conflicts' entail and how to interpret results. It lacks sufficient guidance for a tool with this many inputs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description says 'one field across matching index mappings', hinting that 'field' is the field name and 'index' might be a pattern, but does not clarify format or constraints for any of the 5 required parameters. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 specific verb 'inspect' and resource 'one field across matching index mappings', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_field_count or search_index. It also states the outcome: 'report mapping type conflicts'.

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 implies use when checking mapping conflicts across indices, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_index_details or search_index. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned.

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