List Smart Mock Matching Rules

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds meaningful behavior: it reveals that the built-in catalog is included by default unless filtered out, and that project context is required. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 short sentences deliver the essential purpose, the distinguishing concept, and a key behavioral default without filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, scope, and notable default behavior. It slightly under-specifies pagination behavior and relationships to sibling tools, but remains sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying the isBuiltIn parameter to a concrete behavior ('Includes the built-in catalog unless you filter it out'), which the schema alone does not convey as clearly.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('Smart Mock matching rules'), and a scope ('of one mock server'). It also explains what those rules do ('decide which faker value a field name gets'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling list_mock_rules.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_mock_rules or get_mock_rule_diagnostics. The note 'Requires project context' provides a prerequisite but not a usage context or exclusion.

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