getMock

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds some behavioral context by specifying what the response includes (collection UID and mockUrl) and how to use the output, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 well-structured, using bullet points to separate key points: the resource and response details, and usage guidance. It avoids unnecessary repetition and gets straight to the point, though the second bullet could be slightly more integrated with the first for better flow.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the response content and usage context, which is helpful, but doesn't cover potential errors, return format details, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'getMocks'. For a read operation with good annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'mockId' clearly documented as 'The mock's ID.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 tool's purpose as 'Gets information about a mock server' with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('mock server'), which is unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getMocks' (plural) or 'updateMock', leaving some room for confusion about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning the response includes 'collection' UID and 'mockUrl', and suggests using the 'collection' UID to navigate back to the source collection. This gives context about the tool's role in a workflow, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getMocks' or 'updateMock', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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