mock_dispatcher

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 discloses key lifetime behavior (dispatcher stops with the server), side effects (start/stop toggles Map Remote), and persistence of mock files. It does not address potential issues like port conflicts or overlapping instances, but it covers the most important operational side effects.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and additional behavioral details follow logically. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already captured. The description covers the action semantics, side effects, and the alternative for long-running use. The only missing piece is a clear explanation of the `port` parameter, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains `toggle_map_remote` by referencing its default behavior, and `action` is self-evident from the enum. However, `port` is never explained beyond its name; the description doesn't clarify what a port value does, its default meaning when null, or constraints. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema documentation.

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 explicitly states the verb and resource: 'Start, stop or check the local dispatcher that Map Remote routes point to.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like charles_status (general status) and mock_* tools (mock content) by narrowing to the dispatcher lifecycle.

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 clear usage context: it explains the dispatcher is short-lived within the MCP server and directs users to the `charles-mcp-dispatcher` command for long-running instances. It does not explicitly contrast with other mock tools, but the alternative for a distinct scenario is given, which is sufficient for routing.

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