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 context beyond these, such as the default scope ('only mock servers you created across all workspaces') and the parameter conflict rule, 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 (5 lines) with the core action front-loaded. Bullet points efficiently convey usage guidelines without 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?

Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description provides complete guidance: default behavior, scoping options, and conflict resolution. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining usage precedence (prefer workspace, conflict rule) and how to populate teamId, which is not in the schema. However, the schema is already quite detailed, so the added value is moderate.

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 scoping behavior. It distinguishes this read operation from sibling tools like createMock, getMock, and updateMock by focusing on listing and filtering.

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 instructions are given: always pass workspace or teamId, prefer workspace when known, and how to derive teamId from GET /me. It also clarifies conflict resolution when both parameters are provided.

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