nexus_get_file_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does add some useful details about returned fields (MD5, virus scan link, changelog), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements or response considerations beyond what annotations cover.

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?

A single tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific values returned. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

With complete parameter documentation, full annotations, and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke this read-only tool. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema already handles that, and no prerequisite warnings are 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters already have meaningful descriptions referencing the numeric mod ID, numeric file ID, and lowercase game-domain slug. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a single file of a mod') and enumerates the exact data returned (version, size, MD5, virus scan link, changelog), which clearly separates it from sibling tools such as nexus_get_mod_files (file listing) or nexus_get_download_link.

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 conveys that this is for retrieving metadata about one specific mod file, which implies the use case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related tools like nexus_get_mod_files, nexus_get_file_hash, or nexus_get_mod_changelogs. No exclusions or alternates are named.

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