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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it states that nothing device-wide is changed, no certificate is installed, the effect is scoped to the page, and native requests are never intercepted. It also discloses match ordering, which is behavior an agent could not infer from the tool name or schema.

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 with no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded. The scope limitation and side-effect guarantees are each stated once and earn their place.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is listed, the ordering, the exact scope, and the absence of device-wide side effects. There are no meaningful gaps.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the single 'udid' parameter with a clear description ('Device id (Android serial or iOS UDID)'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List the browser mock/abort routes currently registered for this device', and adds the critical detail 'in match order (first match wins)'. It also explicitly scopes itself to WEB CONTENT ONLY, distinguishing it from native traffic mocks and from sibling add/remove/clear/status 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 clearly states when to use the tool (for browser/WebView page requests) and when not to ('Requests made by native app code are NOT intercepted and never will be by this tool'). However, it does not explicitly name which sibling tool should be used for native traffic mocks, leaving that to inference.

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