getMocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: default filtering to user's own mocks, parameter precedence, and that only active mocks are returned. This adds meaningful context without contradiction.

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 with three logically ordered sections: what it does, parameter usage rules, and priority clarification. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 two optional parameters, the description provides sufficient context: default behavior, scoping options, and parameter interaction. Lacks explicit mention of return format (array of mocks), but given no output schema, this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description enhances parameter semantics by providing usage rules and priority (workspace over teamId), which goes beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is elevated due to added guidance.

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 all active mock servers' and specifies the default scope (user's own mocks across workspaces), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'getMock' (singular) as a list operation.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: always pass either workspace or teamId, prefer workspace, how to obtain teamId from current user, and the behavior when both parameters are passed (only workspace used). This clearly tells when to use which parameter.

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