ipt_get_mapping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output content in depth and reveals a behavioral branch ('unless all=true'), which is useful. However, it never explicitly states the operation is read-only, notes any prerequisite state of the resource, or hints at permission requirements – moderate transparency for a show-style tool.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action 'Show a mapping:' before enumerating the returned components. It is informative without padding, and every clause adds content about what the mapping view contains.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description bears more responsibility. It thoroughly specifies the returned content but leaves the mid parameter unexplained and the all toggle only partially defined. For a tool with 4 parameters and 2 required, this is adequate but has clear gaps that an agent must guess around.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% (shortname and rowType documented; all and mid not). The description partially compensates by explaining the all=true behavior, but the 'mid' parameter (integer, default 0) is never mentioned – an agent cannot tell what mid selects. Since the description covers only one of the two undocumented parameters, it adds value but does not fully bridge the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource – 'Show a mapping' – and enumerates the displayed contents in detail (source columns, ID column, term assignments, unmapped source columns, unmapped required terms). It is clearly a read/inspection tool distinct from the mutation siblings (ipt_add_mapping/set_mapping/delete_mapping), though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the mapping-mutation or metadata siblings. It does not state a use case, prerequisites (e.g., a draft resource that must exist), or when one would prefer ipt_get_metadata or ipt_get_status instead. The usage context is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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