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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a status/read operation, what data it returns (armed state, target, routes, counters), and provides a diagnostic hint about interpreting mocked: 0. It doesn't mention whether it requires an active browser session or what happens if interception is not armed, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the diagnostic guidance is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 status-reporting tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool reports and how to interpret the key counter. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., interception must be armed first) or what happens when no mocks exist, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the only parameter (udid) is fully described in the schema as 'Device id (Android serial or iOS UDID)'. The description doesn't add parameter-specific detail, but with full schema coverage, baseline 3 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 reports browser interception status, including armed state, target page, active routes, and hit counters. It distinguishes itself from sibling mock tools (add/clear/list/remove) by focusing on status reporting, and the specific mention of counters confirms it is a read-only diagnostic tool.

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 when to use it: after setting up mocks, to verify a mock is firing. It explicitly tells the agent to check counters to confirm a mock is actually matching, and notes that a route that never matches shows mocked: 0. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like webpage_mock_list, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over sibling mock tools.

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