docs_get_mapper_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as retrieving documentation, which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state idempotency, response format, or side effects. The behavior is straightforward, but additional detail would improve 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, content summary, usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what content it provides, and when to use it.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description does not add parameter info, which is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves PixelBlaze 2D/3D pixel mapping reference documentation. It distinguishes from siblings like docs_get_api_reference and docs_fetch_page by specifying the exact resource and content scope.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call this when working with multi-dimensional LED layouts or spatial effects.' This clearly indicates when to use, though it does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives.

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