Get Mock Rule Diagnostics

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

The description discloses the behavior of both views ('drift' compares against the latest spec version, 'state' returns the stored state) and notes it requires project context. The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description does not contradict that. It could mention error cases or side effects, but none exist for a read-only inspection.

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, with the primary action 'Inspect one mock rule' leading and the two view options explained compactly. Every sentence adds useful information 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?

The description provides sufficient context for a simple read-only tool: it states the required project context, explains both view options, and indicates what each returns. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of 'lists what changed' and 'returns the stored state' gives a reasonable preview. It does not address error conditions or edge cases, but those are not essential for a basic inspection 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?

Both parameters (ruleId and view) are fully documented in the schema with clear descriptions: ruleId is the public GUID of the mock rule, and view specifies whether to inspect drift or state. The description reinforces the meaning of the view values, leaving no ambiguity.

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: 'Inspect one mock rule.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it operates on mock rules and offers two distinct views (drift and state), making its scope unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does and mentions it requires project context, but it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like list_mock_rules or get_mock_server. The guidance is implicit – a user would infer this is for inspecting a single mock rule – but not explicit about when to choose this over related tools.

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