modifiers.list

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

The description explicitly states the tool is 'read-only', signaling no destructive side effects. However, it does not disclose details like performance impact, behavior on invalid objects, or permissions required. With no annotations, the description provides minimal additional behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word is meaningful and necessary.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of modifier names/types) or what happens if no object is specified. This leaves an important gap for an AI agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate, but it only repeats the schema title ('Object to inspect (defaults to active)') without adding meaning such as what 'active' means or acceptable formats.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'modifier stack of an object', and the nature 'read-only'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that modify modifiers (e.g., modifiers.add, modifiers.set).

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 for inspection only, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like modifiers.add or modifiers.report. No when-not or comparisons are provided.

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