Get a mock server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by detailing response fields (collection UID and mockUrl) without contradicting any annotations. This gives the agent useful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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 concise and efficiently structured: a clear opening sentence and a bullet point for the response details. No filler or redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple get operation with one parameter, the description, combined with annotations (read-only, idempotent) and schema (full parameter description), covers all necessary aspects: action, resource, response fields, and safety. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of the returned fields.

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 sole parameter mockId is fully described in the schema as 'The mock's ID,' covering 100% of the schema. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, but with complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Gets information about a mock server,' specifying the action (gets) and the resource (mock server). It distinguishes from siblings like getMocks (plural) by focusing on a single mock entity, and it adds response details (collection UID, mockUrl) that clarify what information is returned.

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 gives context about the response, advising to use the collection UID for navigation, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like getMocks or state when this tool should be selected. The purpose is clear enough to imply usage, but explicit selection criteria are missing.

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