nexus_get_files_by_uid

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious behavioral facts not present in annotations: the v2 GraphQL backend does not consume the v1 REST rate-limit quota, and the response omits domainName/modID, requiring separate resolution before download tools. These are high-value caveats.

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: core operation first, then use case, then key caveats, then return shape. Markers like 'Ideal when', 'NOTE', and 'Returns' make it easy to scan, and every segment earns its place.

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 the tool's simple read-only nature, 100% schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description provides all needed selection and invocation context: when to use it, rate-limit behavior, a critical data gap, and the required follow-up before downloads. Nothing essential 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so paramaters are already well documented with descriptions, bounds, and defaults. The description adds useful context about UID provenance and the lack of domain/modID, but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond schema. Basline 3 fits.

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?

Description names the specific operation ('Get mod file lists by mod UID(s)'), indicates the API channel, and explicitly distinguishes from domain/modId-based lookups by saying no domain/modID pair is needed. This makes it clearly separable from sibling tools like nexus_get_mod_files and nexus_get_files_v2.

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?

'Ideal when you only have the uid' gives clear selection context with concrete examples (.nxm link or mod pipeline). It also instructs the agent to resolve the owning game/mod before calling download tools. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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