Get one mod file record

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

No annotations are present, so the description correctly carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, intentionally returns no download URL, and will never download or install. The v0 caveat that all field paths are unverified is valuable transparency about reliability.

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 front-loaded with purpose and returned fields, then provides caveats. Each sentenced earns its place: content-pack inspection, no-download-URL policy, read-only, and v0 unverified note. The DEC-002 citation is slightly verbose for a tool-calling agent but not wasteful.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the needed context: purpose, key parameters, returned field names, raw-integer encodings, read-only behavior, the download-URL absence, and reliability caveat. Its main gap is not explicitly routing to sibling tools, which was already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions ('CurseForge numeric mod project id. Digits only...' and 'CurseForge numeric file id.'). The description only restates that the IDs are numeric and adds no substantive parameter semantics beyond 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 starts with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single file record for a mod'), and specifies the exact keys (numeric mod id and file id). This clearly distinguishes it from list_mod_files and get_latest_file in the sibling set, even without naming them. The title reinforces the singular, ID-based scope.

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?

It gives clear usage context: fetch one known file by IDs, inspect file_name and file_length_bytes before treating a file as a content pack, and do not use it when a download URL is needed because it explicitly does not return one. It stops short of naming specific sibling tools for enumeration or latest-file selection, so it is not a 5, but it is far above implied usage.

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