omni_mod_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool parses and returns models/recipes/GUIs and a problem list with engine-code citations, which gives useful expectations. However, it never explicitly states whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, and it omits failure/performance behaviors for large or malformed mods.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences: the first identifies the target and accepted input; the second summarizes output categories and problem-list content. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with one well-covered parameter, the description is largely adequate for invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the broad terms 'metadata', 'file counts', 'parsed models/recipes/GUIs', and 'problem list' leave the return structure underspecified, which could hurt downstream result interpretation.

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 already fully documents the single required 'path' parameter as an absolute path to a mod JAR or folder (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description only restates this as 'JAR or unzipped folder,' adding negligible semantic value beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Inspect'), a clear resource ('a Forge mod (JAR or unzipped folder)'), and enumerates the outputs (metadata, file counts, parsed models/recipes/GUIs, problem list). This makes the tool's role clear and it is naturally distinct from sibling mod tools like omni_mod_add or omni_mod_scaffold, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives no guidance about when to prefer this over the many mod-related siblings (e.g., omni_batch_validate, omni_mod_add, omni_recipe_validate) or what conditions make it the right choice. The only usage signal is the generic 'Inspect' verb, which is implicit rather than explicit exclusion/inclusion guidance.

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