check_mod_updates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the matching mechanism (sha1), that results are per-file current-vs-latest, and the edge case for unrecognized files (known:false), but it never states that the operation is read-only and non-mutating, nor any cost/rate considerations for querying a remote API.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler; the resource and matching method are front-loaded, and the parenthetical caveat is appended where it is least disruptive.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is compared, by what key, and the shape of the per-file result including the known:false marker. Only the identifier format for 'instance' and the read-only nature remain unaddressed.

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% for the single 'instance' parameter. The description implies it is the instance whose mod jars are inspected, but never clarifies whether it takes a name, ID, or path, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource: check an instance's mod jars against Modrinth, matched by sha1. The 'against Modrinth' clause implicitly separates it from the sibling check_mod_updates_cf (CurseForge) without naming it explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the Modrinth mention hints the CurseForge variant is the alternative, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite guidance. An agent must infer the routing from the source name alone.

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