List active mock rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that the tool lists 'active in-memory mock rules' but does not disclose what exactly is returned (format, structure), whether the list reflects only unexpired or all rules, or any side effects. While it's likely a read-only operation, the lack of explicit non-mutating behavior disclosure is a gap, especially with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool. Slightly more context on the return value could have been included, but the description is efficiently compact for what it needs to communicate.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is reasonably complete but could be richer. It doesn't describe what the returned mock rules list looks like (fields, format) or how it relates to the mock lifecycle siblings like proxy_mock_response and proxy_clear_mocks. Given the tool's simplicity and no schema/output schema to lean on, a bit more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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?

This tool has 0 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to convey. Per the guidelines, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to add anything about parameters since there are none to explain.

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 'View the active in-memory mock rules' clearly uses a specific verb (view/list) and resource (active in-memory mock rules). It distinguishes from siblings like proxy_list_transforms and proxy_list_traffic since it specifies 'mock rules' specifically. The title 'List active mock rules' reinforces the purpose without being a pure tautology since it adds 'in-memory' context.

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 implies the tool is for viewing mock rules that are in-memory (as opposed to persisted or transforms), which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention that it pairs with proxy_add_mock / proxy_clear_mocks for managing the mock rules lifecycle. The purpose is clear but the guidance is only implicit.

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