import_mocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context like format auto-detection and the dry-run preview feature, but it does not cover other behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a tool that modifies data.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey key information: the tool's function and a usage tip. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the main purpose and a usage guideline, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects or return values, which are important for 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'dryRun' and format auto-detection, which aligns with the schema but does not add significant meaning beyond it. This 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 ('Import mocks') and resource ('from inline content'), and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'export_mocks' and 'manage_mock' by focusing on the import function. It also specifies the supported formats, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 on when to use the tool (e.g., 'Use dryRun=true to preview without applying'), which helps guide its application. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, such as 'manage_mock' for other operations, leaving some room for improvement.

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