Get BeamNG modding best practices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail about 'explicit source classification' in the output, but it doesn't elaborate on what that means or other behaviors like response format or rate limits. It adds some value but is minimal.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits key context about the tool's domain and usage, making it less effective than a slightly longer description that front-loads essential 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 tool with three parameters (one required enum) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'guidance' means in practice, what 'source classification' looks like, or what the return value contains, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 description provides no explanation of any parameters (modType, topic, severity). The required modType enum and optional fields are left entirely undocumented in the description, so the agent has no semantic context beyond the raw schema names.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and mentions 'evidence-backed guidance with explicit source classification,' but the resource is vague and doesn't explicitly say it's about BeamNG modding. The title clarifies the purpose, but the description alone is abstract and doesn't fully distinguish from sibling tools like docs search.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as beamng_docs_search or beamng_source_search. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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