List a mod's files

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

Even though no annotations are provided, the description discloses several important behaviors: integers are raw and unmapped, page size is capped at 50 and over-large requests are refused rather than clamped, and the tool is read-only. It also warns about inspecting file_name and file_length_bytes before treating a file as a content pack, and flags the v0 field-path verification status. This goes well beyond minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences with dense information and no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the most important caveats. It could arguably be split for readability, but each clause carries meaningful detail. The final 'v0' note is a valuable trust signal rather than noise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fills in the most important gaps: raw integer behavior, the 50-item cap, refusal rather than clamping, and read-only status. It lacks explicit return-value shape details, but with pagination and field names mentioned, an agent can infer the entry structure. Sibling tools like get_mod_file might provide the targeted-file alternative, but the description is sufficient for deciding when to call this tool.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description complements this by explaining the key semantics of page_size (refused rather than clamped) and the raw integer caveat for the values returned. It doesn't redundantly repeat every parameter, but it adds meaningful context about how the parameters affect behavior.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('published files for one mod'), and the pagination aspect. Distinct from siblings like get_mod_file or get_latest_file because it covers all published files for a mod rather than a single targeted file. It also clearly contrasts read-only behavior without any ambiguity.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool — when you need all published files for a mod, with pagination and dependency metadata — versus siblings like get_latest_file or get_mod_file which focus on specific files. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but it explains what this tool uniquely provides. The field-path caveat at the end ('v0: all field paths unverified') gives honest guidance about trust.

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