list_mocks

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states it lists mocks, leaving out important details like whether it returns a list or an array, pagination behavior, or if it filters by user access. The term 'all' may be misleading if there are limits.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation.

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 the lack of an output schema and many sibling tools (e.g., get_mock, create_mock), the description could be more complete by mentioning that it returns an array of mock objects or including usage guidance. However, for a simple list tool, it is minimally adequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the parameters (teamId, workspace). The description adds no additional meaning or context for these parameters, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'List all mock servers' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_mock' by implying multiple results, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., list_environments).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_mock' for a single mock or 'create_mock' for adding a mock. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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