Preview Smart Mock

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about using active project Smart Mock settings and the 'before saving' intent, but does not describe output format, error behavior, or what happens when project context is missing. Given the annotation coverage, the added behavioral detail is moderate.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and behavior, the second gives the use case and prerequisite. Essential information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, why to use it, and a prerequisite. It does not explicitly state the return value, but 'Render... replaced by generated values' sufficiently implies the rendered result.

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 documents responseBody as a template containing {{faker.*}} placeholders. The description reinforces this by explaining the placeholders are replaced with generated values, but adds little new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('response body template with {{faker.*}} placeholders replaced'), and clarifies the tool's purpose as checking a template before saving it on a rule. This distinguishes it from related mock/test tools in the sibling list.

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?

States a clear use case ('check a template before saving it on a rule') and a key prerequisite ('Requires project context'). It does not explicitly name alternatives like test_smart_mock or say when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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