get_modding_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the tool retrieves best practices. It does not describe the return format, whether unsupported topics cause errors, the size/nature of the output, or any side effects. The "Covers both Forge and NeoForge" note adds scope but not behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the cross-platform scope in the second sentence. Every element is useful.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core input and scope, but does not explain what the agent should expect in the response or how it relates to list_knowledge_topics. There is no output schema to compensate, so the missing return-value context leaves a modest 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the sole parameter with examples. The description adds little beyond restating that the topic should be "specific," which is minimal added value. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ("Get") and resource ("best practices and patterns for a specific modding topic"), making the core purpose clear. It also distinguishes from siblings like get_api_detail or get_document by focusing on patterns rather than signatures or raw content, though it doesn't explicitly reference a sibling.

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 implies this is for retrieving best practices, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus related tools such as list_knowledge_topics, search_docs, or get_api_detail. There is no exclusion condition or pointer to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the correct choice.

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