browser_route_mock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key behavior: matching requests are intercepted and fulfilled with a canned response, bypassing the real endpoint. However, it omits important behavioral details such as whether the mock persists until cleared, whether it overrides existing routes, or how it interacts with browser_route_clear/browser_route_block. This is a meaningful gap for a routing 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action ('Mock matching requests with a canned response'), and the second adds a practical use case. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 route-mocking tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool does and when it is useful. The only missing context is lifecycle and interaction with other routing tools (clear/block), which is a minor omission given the straightforward purpose and rich sibling set.

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 description coverage is 100% – every parameter (body, status, urlPattern, contentType) has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. The phrase 'canned response' loosely maps to body/status/contentType, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Mock matching requests with a canned response (fulfill).' This clearly states that the tool intercepts network requests and returns a predefined response. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like browser_route_block (blocking) and browser_route_clear (removing mocks) through the core 'mock/fulfill' behavior.

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 concrete context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for stubbing APIs or bypassing endpoints.' This tells an agent the typical scenarios, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion conditions. The context is clear enough to guide selection, but not as fully explicit as naming a specific sibling alternative.

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