List Mock Rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: deterministic sort order, the specific attributes returned, and the project-context dependency on set_context. This gives an agent expectations about output ordering and preconditions without contradicting the annotation.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope plus pagination, return and sort behavior, and prerequisite. The most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema 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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, ordering rule, pagination intent, and the required prior state (set_context). Defaults and maximums already live in the schema, so nothing essential an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already fully documents skip, take (including default 50, max 100), and mockServerId. The description's use of 'pagination' and the project-context note add peripheral color but no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all mock rules') with scope ('for a mock server') and augments it with pagination and sorting semantics ('sorted by priority (lower = higher precedence)'). The returned fields are enumerated (path pattern, method, status code, active status), making it identifiable against siblings such as list_smart_mock_matching_rules without opening the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Requires project context (call set_context first)', which tells an agent what state must be established before invoking. However, it does not name alternatives or conditions that would favor a different sibling tool, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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