list_modifiers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose the return format, error behavior for nonexistent objects, or any other side effects, so it does not go beyond what annotations already provide.

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 that earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's low complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any details about behavior or error handling, so it functions as an adequate but bare minimum for context.

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 only vaguely references 'the object' without explaining the object_name parameter's format or expected values. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 'Daftar modifier pada objek' (List modifiers on the object) uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools that add, remove, or apply modifiers, though it lacks explicit scope qualifiers like 'all' or 'existing'.

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 add_modifier or remove_modifier. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied.

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