getMocks

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about default scoping ('returns only mock servers you created across all workspaces') and parameter behavior, but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, pagination, or error handling.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points for specific guidelines. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose content.

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 list tool with good annotations and full parameter documentation, the description provides adequate context about scoping and parameter usage. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return format or pagination, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces parameter usage guidance but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, meeting the baseline for high 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 verb 'Gets' and resource 'all active mock servers', specifying the default scope ('only mock servers you created across all workspaces'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getMock' (singular) or 'publishMock', which would require a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use parameters: 'Always pass either the `workspace` or `teamId` query to scope results. Prefer `workspace` when known.' It also explains how to obtain `teamId` and clarifies parameter precedence ('If both `teamId` and `workspace` are passed, only `workspace` is used').

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