validate_mod

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioral burden and does not. It doesn't say whether validation merely reports problems or also mutates anything, whether it blocks on large mods, whether it requires a saved/loaded mod state, or how results are surfaced (log vs. return value).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint ('active mod') arrives immediately. Nothing in it is redundant.

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?

This is a diagnostic tool whose entire value is its output, yet there is no output schema, no annotations, and the description says nothing about what the validators produce (error list, counts, log entries) or how the agent should consume it. For a zero-annotation, zero-output-schema tool, that is a significant gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description correctly implies no input is needed because it acts on the active mod. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 (run validators) and a specific resource (the editor's asset validators over the active mod), so the agent knows exactly what the operation does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as package_mod or save_all, which also act on the active mod and involve validation-adjacent steps.

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?

'Over the active mod' implies the precondition that a mod must be open/active, but the description never states when to call this versus package_mod (which likely also validates) or what to do with the results. Usage is inferable but no explicit when/when-not or alternative is given.

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