modifiers-list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly notes 'read-only', which is a key safety behavioral trait, but it does not elaborate on return format, error handling, or any limitations. This is sufficient for a simple inspect operation but not exhaustive.

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 very short yet includes the verb, resource, and a safety qualifier. Every word earns its place, but it is slightly terse, missing a touch of elaboration on what 'modifier stack' yields (e.g., names, details). Still, it is efficient and structured for quick parsing.

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 list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It clearly states the action and object, and the read-only hint covers the main behavioral concern. It does not describe the return format, but for a list of modifiers, this is a minor omission given the surrounding sibling tools that imply typical output structure.

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?

There is one optional parameter, and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the tool description must compensate. The description 'of an object' signals the parameter's role, and the schema title 'Object to inspect (defaults to active)' adds default behavior, but the tool description itself does not describe the parameter meaning or default. It provides marginal benefit 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('modifier stack of an object'), and the parenthetical '(read-only)' clarifies safe operation. It clearly differentiates from mutation siblings like modifiers-add or modifiers-apply by focusing on read-only inspection.

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 '(read-only)' qualifier provides clear context that this tool is for inspection, not modification, which distinguishes it from mutation tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this when you need to inspect modifiers without changing them,' so it stops short of a full 5.

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