Get Mock API Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks running status, port, and collections with item counts, implying a read-only inspection. It does not explicitly say it has no side effects or how errors are handled, but for a status check this is a reasonable level of disclosure. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the bare tool name.

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 two sentences, both purposeful. The first sentence defines what the tool does, and the second gives usage context. There is no filler, and the primary function is front-loaded. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, single sibling), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the information returned, and the appropriate usage context. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it does not, 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's action: 'Checks whether the local mock API is currently running, on which port, and lists its collections with item counts.' It names a specific resource (mock API) and the information it returns, distinguishing it from the sibling setup_mock_api which would be for starting the server rather than inspecting its state.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this before assuming setup_mock_api needs to be called, or to confirm the server an Artifact is calling is actually up.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool and frames it as a check before potentially calling the sibling, giving clear decision context.

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