network_list_mocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' and 'active' communicate a read-only scoped operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no mocks are modified, nor does it describe return shape or side-effect absence. This is adequate but minimal.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation, resource, and scope.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameterees, the description is largely sufficient: it states the operation, resource, and scope. The only minor gap is the lack of any detail about the returned data since no output schema is provided, but 'List' reasonably implies a list of mock rules.

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%: targetId is already documented as 'Target ID of the tab'. The description adds only 'for a tab', which reinforces the schema but provides no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers.

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 ('List'), names the exact resource ('active network mock rules'), and scopes it to a tab. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_add_mock, network_remove_mock, and network_clear_mocks.

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 implies its usage through the verb 'List' and the resource scope, so an agent can infer it is for inspection rather than mutation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or mention any exclusions, leaving the routing entirely implicit.

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