mock_get

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. 'Show' implies read-only, but this is not explicit, and there is no mention of side effects, required permissions, or limitations (e.g., only active mocks are accessible). The description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 single sentence is extremely brief, which is concise in word count, but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. It front-loads the core purpose but omits crucial context, making it ineffective rather than appropriately concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of max_chars, any constraints on host/path format, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. An agent with only this description would struggle to use the tool 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?

The description does not add any parameter-level meaning. The schema covers host and path (67% coverage), but max_chars is left undefined in both the schema description and the tool description. The description fails to clarify how parameters affect the output or behavior.

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 states a clear verb ('show') and resource ('content of one active mock'). It implies a specific fetch operation, distinguishing it from mock_list which likely lists all mocks. However, it does not explicitly mention the identifying parameters (host/path), but the schema covers that.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mock_list or mock_write. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the schema.

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