Helpful Mods Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral expectation that the output is evidence rather than a compatibility certification, but the "up to 8 mods" cap merely restates the schema's maxItems and nothing is said about the shape or limits of the evidence returned.

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, no filler, with the capability stated first and the scope disclaimer second. Every clause 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 simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the safety and scope story is adequate and the absence of an output schema is partly offset by calling the result "published support evidence." Still, with 0% schema description coverage the definition leaves an agent unsure how to format ids and especially what to put in the free-text environment field.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters and it largely does not. "Up to 8 mods" loosely maps to ids and "requested environment" loosely maps to environment, but there is no clarification of the id format (a lowercase slug pattern) or of what an environment string should contain — a free-form field of up to 1000 characters that is the single most ambiguous input here.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Read published support evidence") plus scope ("up to 8 mods alongside the requested environment"), and it rules out what the tool is not (no project inspection, no certification). It never names or contrasts with the other tools (get_mod_details, search_catalog), so sibling differentiation is inferred from the negative framing rather than stated. "Support evidence" is also somewhat abstract about what is actually returned.

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 exclusion "This does not inspect a project or certify compatibility" is a genuine when-not signal that steers an agent away from treating results as a verdict. However, no alternative tool is named for the cases it excludes, so an agent must guess whether get_mod_details or get_setup_overview is the right fallback.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the closed-world constraint (only public mods are visible) and the error-on-unknown-ID behavior. It says nothing about response shape, pagination, or whether unpublished/private mods are indistinguishable from nonexistent ones.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The phrase "supported scope and limitations" is vague enough to cost a point because a reader cannot tell whether it means game compatibility, feature limits, or both.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the payload, and it names the returned facets only vaguely. It omits the id format and any notion of what a successful response contains, though the error semantics it does state are helpful for a read tool.

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 0%, so the only structured hint about the single parameter is a regex pattern (^[a-z][a-z0-9-]{0,47}$). The description does not explain that id is a lowercase mod slug, how to obtain it, or its length limit, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a public mod description") plus the facets returned (scope and limitations), which separates it from siblings like search_catalog and get_compatibility_guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming the boundary against those siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives; an agent must infer that get_mod_details is the follow-up to a search_catalog result. The only usage-adjacent information is the failure note that unknown IDs return an error.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful context by saying the data is public and explicitly ruling out file access or installation, but it does not describe return shape, permissions, or what the 'local buyer package resource paths' actually mean.

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 tightly written sentences with the resource content front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a useful boundary clarification rather than wasted text.

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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, enumerating the returned content is helpful. However, the description leaves the required 'id' completely unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently determine what identifier to pass.

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 single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its expected format, or which object it identifies. Because the low schema coverage requires the description to compensate and it does not, it adds no parameter meaning.

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?

States the specific verb 'Read' and enumerates returned artifacts such as setup steps, business questions, verification, and resource paths, so the resource is concrete. It does not mention sibling tools or explain how this overview differs from get_mod_details or get_compatibility_guidance, so it falls short of 5.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. 'No file access or installation' is a boundary statement, not a selection criterion for choosing this tool over siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: the link is viewable without sign-in, pricing is only an estimate, and the buyer finalizes total and payment in Checkout — clarifying that this tool does not transact. It omits things like link lifetime/expiry, whether repeated calls with the same IDs return the same URL, and what exactly is returned.

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 tight sentences, zero redundancy, and the functional statement is front-loaded ahead of the checkout clarification. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter, annotation-covered, non-destructive tool, the description covers the key ambiguity agents would have — that this is a shareable estimate, not a checkout. Remaining gaps (return value shape, link expiry, duplicate handling) are minor but real given there is no output schema.

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 schema encodes real constraints (1-26 items, ID pattern ^[a-z][a-z0-9-]{0,47}$), but schema description coverage is 0%, so the only signal is the bare 'productIds' name. The description says 'selected mods' but adds nothing about ID format, ordering, duplicates, or the 26-item cap, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Prepare a public cart link with selected mods'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the read-only lookup siblings (search_catalog, get_mod_details, get_compatibility_guidance). It stops short of naming a sibling or contrasting scope, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the step after selecting mods, and that it does not complete a purchase. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools, and no stated prerequisites such as requiring valid catalog product IDs.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful output-scoping context ('catalog summaries and pricing policy, not a checkout quote') but says nothing about result count, pagination, empty-result behavior, or how limit affects the response.

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 short sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the output scoping second. Slightly awkward phrasing ('mod source preparations') costs a little, but nothing is redundant.

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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition clarifies what is returned and what is not, which is genuinely helpful. It still leaves the limit parameter and result-volume behavior undocumented, so it is only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: it hints that the primary input is search words and that category is optional. It says nothing about the limit parameter, its default of 16, or its maximum of 50, leaving one of three parameters entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('listed public mod source preparations') plus an optional category filter, so an agent knows this is a catalog lookup. It also draws a scoping line against a checkout flow, which distinguishes it from prepare_cart_link, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_mod_details.

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 closing clause implies this is for browsing catalog summaries and pricing policy rather than obtaining a checkout quote, which indirectly routes pricing-to-purchase intent to prepare_cart_link. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_mod_details or get_compatibility_guidance.

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