list_mods

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the useful behavioral detail that enabled state is returned alongside each jar. It omits what happens on a missing/unknown instance, whether non-jar files are skipped, and whether disabled jars are included in the listing.

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 tight sentence with the resource and the key return attribute front-loaded; nothing extraneous.

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 simple read tool with no output schema and one parameter, the definition is minimally serviceable but leaves the identifier format and the listing scope (all jars vs enabled only) unspecified. Adding one clause on identifier format would close the main 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, and the description only implies that 'instance' identifies an instance — it never says whether that is an instance name, ID, or path. The one parameter that must be supplied is effectively undocumented.

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 (List) and resource (jars in an instance's mods folder) and adds that enabled state is included, which separates it from a bare directory dump. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from (search_mods, list_mod_files_cf), so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'in an instance's mods folder' implies local-instance scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as search_mods for remote browsing or list_blocked_mods. An agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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