nexus_get_badges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is backed by v2 GraphQL, exempt from v1 rate-limit quota, static, cacheable, and returns a specific JSON shape. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by operational guidance and return format. Each sentence contributes distinct value with no filler or redundancy.

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 a zero-argument, read-only static catalog tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers invocation, caching behavior, backend/rate-limit implications, and return structure. Nothing operationally important is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify beyond what the schema already shows. The baseline score of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 and resource: 'List all badges a mod can earn', with concrete examples ('Top pick', 'Easy install'). This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like nexus_add_badge_to_collection and other lookup tools such as nexus_get_tags.

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?

It provides clear usage context by identifying the data as a static catalog and advising the agent to cache the result. It also notes the v2 GraphQL API does not consume v1 REST quota, which is useful for deciding when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but this is a zero-argument read-only lookup with few competing siblings.

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