get_mock_invocations

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent operations, which the description aligns with by implying safe retrieval. It adds value by specifying the tool's purpose for debugging and the types of data returned (request/response pairs), though it doesn't detail behavioral aspects like rate limits or pagination beyond the default limit in the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a usage guideline. Both sentences are essential—the first defines the tool's function, and the second provides context—with no wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent), and the description explains purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on output format or error handling, which could be useful since there's no output schema, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents parameters (id and limit). The description does not add semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining mock ID formats or limit implications, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('List all recorded invocations') and resource ('for a specific mock'), detailing what data is returned (method, path, headers, body, timestamp). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_request_logs' by focusing on mock-specific invocations rather than general request logs.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to debug what requests actually hit a mock'), providing clear context for its application. This distinguishes it from alternatives like 'get_request_logs' or 'verify_mock' by specifying its debugging purpose for mock invocations.

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