mock_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful trait that archived versions are not listed, which prevents an agent from expecting them. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any other side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a list operation, this is a moderate gap, hence a 3.

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, front-loaded with the core action and filter option, and the archived-exclusion note is concise and valuable. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key points: what it lists, the filtering capability, and the exclusion of archived versions. The output schema handles return details, so no further explanation is needed. It could be a 5 if it explicitly stated read-only behavior or prerequisites, but it remains sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the 'host' parameter filters the list to one host. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema (which only shows the type and default), enabling the agent to use the parameter correctly. It could be a 5 if it gave more detail (e.g., exact host format), but it covers the essential semantics.

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 specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('active mock files'), and explicitly excludes archived versions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mock_rule_list (which lists rules) or mock_get (which retrieves a specific mock). The scope is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it lists active mock files and optionally filters by one host. It does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of other tools (e.g., mock_get for a single mock), but the resource type is distinct enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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