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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavior-disclosure burden. It declares the tool is read-only, states that it never reveals the key, prefix, or length, and even discloses the v0 hypothesis posture where field paths may be unreliable. This is unusually transparent.

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 long and dense, but nearly every clause adds a distinct diagnostic detail or caveat. It is front-loaded with the core question the tool answers. A slightly shorter or more list-like structure would improve scannability, but there is minimal wasted text.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the reported areas comprehensively: key presence, API call success, gameId resolution, build metadata, allow-list, rate-limit headers, and version posture. It lacks an exact output format example, but the high-level coverage is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so the description cannot add parameter-level semantics. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the diagnostic returns instead.

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 a specific diagnostic verb and resource: it answers 'is it me, the key, or CurseForge?' in one call and enumerates exactly what it reports. The title and description clearly distinguish it from the sibling mod-focused tools.

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 explicit guidance: 'Run this first when other tools behave strangely.' This provides a clear trigger condition for use. It does not spell out when not to use it, but the diagnostic scope makes that exclusion unnecessary.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly. It declares Read-only, explains what every answer restates, notes the file_length_bytes caveat, and explains the deliberate refusal to invent release-type labels. There is no annotation to contradict.

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 dense but well organized: it front-loads the core question, then explains each selection mode and the caveats. Some internal references like 'ADR-002 §14.3 U7' add context but are slightly esoteric, keeping this from a perfect score.

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, the description explains what the answer will contain: the ordering, default application, filter, candidate count, and candidate source. It also draws attention to file_length_bytes and file_name for content-pack inspection, so an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the call correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces parameter requirements but largely restates schema details such as 'Required when selection is...' and 'pass the integer you mean.' It adds useful context but does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage.

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 opens with the exact question the tool answers and identifies the resource: a mod's newest file by a defined notion of 'newest.' It explains that there are three selection definitions and names the default, so an agent can clearly distinguish this from list_mod_files or get_mod_file.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the default versus the other selection variants, stating 'pass another variant only when that is the question you mean.' It also documents the required conditions for the non-default variants and explains why a named release-type filter cannot exist.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', explains the absence of pagination, warns that the record is a catalog row rather than an install recommendation, and flags 'v0: all field paths unverified' as an important caveat. It does not mention error behavior or auth needs, but this is a simple single-record read.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: the field list, the catalog-vs-install clarification, the no-pagination note, the read-only flag, and the v0 caveat. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the description explains the expected return content, clarifies the semantic meaning of the record, rules out pagination, and discloses version uncertainty. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly, and to interpret what it gets back.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents mod_id as a CurseForge numeric mod id with a minimum, maximum, and digits-only note. The description adds only the phrase 'numeric id', which does not meaningfully extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the structured schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single CurseForge mod (project) record by numeric id.' It enumerates concrete returned fields and explicitly contrasts itself with list/search endpoints by calling itself a single-record endpoint, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool to use when you have a numeric mod id and need one catalog record. It also clarifies that pagination is not applicable, which prevents incorrect assumptions. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives like search_mods or get_mod_file for when a different tool should be chosen.

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

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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: it declares read-only, discloses the response shape ('single array (no pagination object)'), and flags the runtime-discovery nature of the returned IDs. It doesn't cover error/rate-limit/auth behavior, but for a read-only list endpoint the disclosed traits are the meaningful ones.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when-to-use, param behavior, response shape. The routing guidance is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of schema text.

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 2-optional-param, read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, this is nearly complete: purpose, sequencing, param semantics, and pagination behavior are all covered. The only gap is the shape of the returned category/class objects (e.g., which fields besides ids are present), which an agent would need when building exclude lists.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-tool meaning: it explains why class_id matters (to feed search_mods include/exclude params), that values must be discovered at runtime rather than hardcoded, and that gameId is intentionally absent. That's more than the schema's 'Restrict to categories under this class id' provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List CurseForge classes and categories for ARK: Survival Ascended'. It separates itself from siblings directly by naming search_mods as the tool that consumes these IDs, and its subject (classes/categories) is distinct from list_mod_files/get_mod. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use this BEFORE search_mods when you need class_id, category_id, or exclude_category_ids — those integers are discovered here, never hardcoded.' It also prunes a likely mistake by stating gameId is resolved at runtime and not a parameter, so the agent won't hunt for a nonexistent gameId param.

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

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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses read-only behavior, highlights over-collection with 'IMPORTANT', states bounds (depth 4, 400 nodes), and explains truncation with the 'unexplored frontier' listed. It also flags 'v0: all field paths unverified', which is valuable risk context.

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?

Five dense, purposeul sentences cover algorithm, result shape, caveat, bounds, truncation, safety, and maturity. The IMORTANT warning is front-loaded after the primary verb, and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, it specifies the return core: every reachable mod, raw relationType integer per edge, and the TRUNCATED/frontier behavior. It also explains why over-collection occurs and how seeds work via file_ids, leaving no material gap for safe invocation.

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?

Schena description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for mod_ids, file_ids, and max_depth. The main description primarily adds algorithm context (breadth-first, batched POST) but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Walk the dependency graph of one or more mods breadth-first', giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing batched bulk POST resolution rather than per-node GETs. Nothing is vague or tautological.

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 provides clear context: use when you need to resolve a dependency tree, and the file_ids parameter includes the explicit guidance 'Use this when you know which file you are running.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and delivers extensively: it states runtime gameId resolution, page_size refusal rather than clamping, explicit pagination semantics, local application of exclude_category_ids, the read-only nature, and even a caveat that game_version behavior is unverified. This goes far beyond a typical tool description.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core purpose first, then edge cases, filter semantics, and output interpretation. It front-loads the main action and ends with a compact 'Read-only.' without repeating any schema 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?

Given the tool's complexity—11 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations—the description provides enough context for correct invocation and result interpretation. It explains the lack of a gameId parameter, pagination behavior, local filtering effects, and the key output fields (file_name, file_length_bytes, curseforge_mod_ids) to pass downstream.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema: it distinguishes include filters sent to CurseForge from locally applied excludes, warns that category_ids overrides category_id and that passing both is refused, and notes that page_size over 50 is refused rather than clamped. This materially improves the agent's ability to pass parameters correctly.

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 opening sentence 'Search the CurseForge catalog for ARK: Survival Ascended mods' names a specific verb, resource, and context, making the action unmistakable. It also differentiates from sibling tools like get_mod and list_mod_files by describing a catalog-level search with paginated results rather than a single-resource lookup.

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 gives concrete cross-tool guidance, directing users to discover filter IDs via list_categories and providing a specific example for gameplay-only excludes. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_mod or get_latest_file, but the search semantics and pagination make the intended context clear.

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