review_mod_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state the tool 'Detects 15+ patterns', suggesting a static-analysis/report behavior, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what the response format is, or any limits like analyzing only a single file at a time. This is a meaningful but incomplete disclosure.

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 a single effective first sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a second sentence that adds capability detail. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description omits any idea of what the tool returns (e.g., a list of detected issues) and any constraints. It covers the domain and loader scope well but leaves the agent without enough context to handle the tool's result reliably.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters ('code' and 'loader' have descriptions and enum values), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond mentioning Forge/NeoForge, which loosely aligns with the loader enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Review Java code for common Forge/NeoForge modding mistakes', which is a specific verb+object+domain. The mention of '15+ patterns including registration errors, event bus issues, client/server mixing' clearly distinguishes this from sibling generation, search, and documentation tools.

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 usage when there is existing Java code to inspect, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not name any sibling tools or provide exclusions such as 'use generate_* for creating new code', so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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