LC Mods

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description does add genuine caveats beyond them — tested_together shows PC/build counts while picks were not tested together, opaque RPF contents are not fully compared, and free GTA V quota is 3 installs/30 days. However, the quota detail concerns installs rather than this read operation, and nothing explains pagination or response shape.

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 text is compact with no obvious filler, but it is a semicolon-chained block of fragments rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. The most important information — what the tool does — is absent at the front, so the density hurts rather than helps parsing.

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 eight parameters, all optional, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description should explain default behavior (e.g., what happens with no filters) and the id/page/limit parameters. Instead it offers domain caveats while omitting basic operational facts an agent needs to invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does add meaning for type (tested_together vs picks), goal (real_cars replaces distinct stock slots, real_cars_addon adds cars), edition, game, and list_key. It says nothing about id, page, or limit, leaving three of eight parameters 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 opens with the noun phrase 'Task collections:' but never states a verb or what the tool actually returns — list, fetch, or search. It describes field semantics (tested_together vs picks, edition, list_key) without ever saying the tool retrieves curated collections. An agent can infer the domain but not the operation.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to the siblings how_to_install, mod_info, or search_mods. Fragments like 'Link lists need their share key' and 'GTA V: choose edition' hint at input conditions but never state when this tool is the right choice over the alternatives.

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?

The statement "Does not install anything remotely" usefully reinforces the readOnly/non-destructive annotations and preempts the assumption that a tool named how_to_install might mutate state. However, it adds nothing about what is returned (verification results? step text? a command string?) or about the openWorld behavior of the returned install command.

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 padding, and the key constraint is placed second where it reads clearly. The only weakness is that the first sentence crams multiple distinct outputs together instead of enumerating them cleanly.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), so the description does not need to explain return structure in depth. Still, with no output schema and no gloss on "setup verification" or "silent setup steps," an agent cannot tell what form the answer takes or how to use it downstream.

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 parameter `id` has zero schema description coverage, and the description never explains that it identifies a mod — only the oblique phrase "an install command for a mod" hints at it. The description also fails to say what happens when `id` is omitted, even though the schema marks it optional.

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?

"Get setup verification and silent setup steps ... plus an install command for a mod" names a resource-ish thing (setup steps, install command) but bundles three loosely defined outputs. "Setup verification" and "silent setup" are undefined jargon, so an agent cannot confidently predict what the tool returns. It is not tautological, but it is vague enough to require inference.

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 reference to siblings like mod_info or search_mods, which an agent would need to choose between. The only orientation given is the negative "Does not install anything remotely," which clarifies behavior but not tool selection.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes an 'agent page' with LC Mod Installer setup and an install command, which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations. It still says nothing about behavior for invalid or missing ids, or about external dependencies.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with no waste, which is good, but the noun-phrase construction and the vague phrase 'an agent page' make it less front-loaded than a clear verb-first statement of purpose would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries full responsibility for describing return values, and it only vaguely gestures at 'details' plus an 'agent page'. Combined with zero parameter documentation, an agent lacks enough information to call this confidently versus its siblings.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never states that 'id' is a mod identifier or what its form is, so an agent must infer this from the tool name alone.

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 names the resource (a mod's public details) and an additional payload (an agent page with LC Mod Installer setup/install command), which tells an agent roughly what comes back. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_mods or collections, so the agent must infer that this is a single-mod lookup by id.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search_mods for finding mods or how_to_install for installation help. Usage is only vaguely implied by the phrase 'mod details'.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — that results include install instructions and require the LC Mod Installer on a Windows PC — but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or how many results are returned per page.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the practical caveat (Windows PC / LC Mod Installer) following. No filler, though the missing parameter detail would have been a better use of space than nothing.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition is thin: filter semantics (game codes, category IDs, auto_only) and result-set behavior are undefined. It does state the return payload contains install instructions, which partially offsets the absent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only explains 'q' ('words in title, description and tags'); game, category, sort, page, limit, and especially auto_only receive no explanation anywhere.

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: 'Search published LC mods', with the search scope ('words in title, description and tags') made explicit. It implicitly separates itself from mod_info (which would fetch a single mod) but never names the siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 only implied by the word 'Search' and the mention of returning install instructions. There is no statement of when to use this versus mod_info, collections, or how_to_install, and no note that the query is optional (all 7 params are optional).

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