export_mocks

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that the export includes 'all current mocks' and returns 'the full mock collection,' clarifying scope. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects, but with annotations covering safety, this provides sufficient behavioral insight.

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 purpose and followed by usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, output format, and use cases. However, it could slightly improve by hinting at the output structure (e.g., 'collection' implies a list or object) or linking to sibling tools like 'import_mocks' for round-trip workflows.

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%, with the single parameter 'format' fully documented in the schema (including default, enum values, and description). The description mentions 'YAML or JSON' but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format implications or usage tips, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Export'), resource ('all current mocks'), and output format ('as YAML or JSON configuration'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'import_mocks' (which imports rather than exports) and 'manage_mock' (which manages individual mocks rather than exporting all).

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 context for when to use this tool ('for backup, sharing, or version control'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'get_mock_invocations' for invocation data instead of configuration).

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