list_mock_endpoints

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 details the return structure, notes the condition for ui_url (only when a managed server is running), and explains the body:null behavior. This goes beyond a simple 'lists endpoints' statement, though it doesn't mention any potential errors or side effects.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides essential return details, and the third adds a practical usage pointer. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the exact return format, conditional UI behavior, and a situational usage hint. Nothing is missing that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation of results.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (coverage 100%). There is nothing to describe beyond the schema, so the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies. The description doesn't need to add parameter details.

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 states the exact verb and resource: 'List all endpoints currently mocked via mock_endpoint.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like clear_mock_endpoints and mock_endpoint by focusing on listing existing mocks. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool (to see mocked endpoints) and adds a specific usage suggestion: 'Suggest the UI to the user when they want to explore beyond what the agent can show in chat.' However, it doesn't explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the purpose makes the primary use obvious.

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