mock_response

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that body is UTF-8 text with a 10 MiB cap to prevent RAM exhaustion, that it returns a rule id, and how to later stop the interception. This covers key behavioral traits.

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, well-structured paragraph with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: what the tool does, how url_pattern works, body limitations, and lifecycle management.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the URL pattern syntax, body limit, and rule lifecycle, but could be more explicit about how the parameters (status, headers, body) map to the mocked response. Still, it's largely complete for a mock tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains url_pattern (Unix glob syntax) and body (UTF-8, 10 MiB cap), but does not describe headers or status in detail. It adds meaning for 2 of 4 parameters, partially mitigating the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool returns a mocked response for requests matching a URL pattern, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_interception' and 'fail_requests' by explaining it provides a mock response rather than failing or intercepting.

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 explains when to use the tool (to return a mocked response) and how to manage the created rule (pass id to stop_interception or call with no args to clear all). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the lifecycle guidance is clear.

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