list_mock_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists endpoints and returns IDs and rule counts, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, mention pagination, or disclose any rate limits or side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and URL pattern, followed by a specific use case. Every word 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 simple list tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output topics (IDs and rule counts), and a use case. It could be slightly enhanced by noting the operation is read-only or scoped to the user's account, but it is largely complete.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (no parameters to describe). According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline score of 4, and the description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable.

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 lists mock API endpoints with a specific URL pattern ({slug}.rbmock.dev) and notes it returns endpoint IDs and rule counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bins and list_mock_captures, which list different resources.

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 says 'Useful for finding endpoint IDs and current rule counts,' which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling tools (e.g., list_mock_captures) are not compared.

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