generate_mod_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the generated artifacts (build.gradle, main class, mods.toml), which is useful, but it does not mention side effects such as directory creation, overwriting existing files, or output location.

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 sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and lists the key outputs. No filler, no redundancy.

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 scaffolding tool that likely writes multiple files, the description lacks details about output directory behavior and integration with existing projects. It is adequate for a high-level understanding but incomplete for an agent needing to predict the tool's full effect.

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 all six parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to, given the high 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 states a specific verb ('scaffold') and resource ('complete Forge or NeoForge mod project'), and lists concrete artifacts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate individual components like blocks or items.

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 word 'complete' implies this tool is for whole-project scaffolding, while siblings like generate_block, generate_item, and generate_entity cover individual pieces. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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