list_mods

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'list' but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, permission requirements, or what 'status' means. This is a minimal acceptable disclosure for a list tool.

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 no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly concise and immediately scannable.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose. It does not clarify what constitutes 'available' or what statuses are possible, but such detail is not strictly necessary for this tool's simplicity. It is slightly above the minimal viable description.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing additional to document. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 available Rocket+ mods and their status' uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Rocket+ mods'), and includes a meaningful attribute ('status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_workflows and get_contacts by naming a distinct resource type.

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. It does not mention typical use cases, exclusions, or context. Even for a simple list operation, the absence of any usage direction leaves the agent to infer appropriateness.

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