nexus_get_legacy_mods

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the description adds the return envelope {totalCount, _returned, nodes} and the explicit pagination behavior offset += _returned. It also flags the 'legacy bridge' path, a useful caveat beyond the schema.

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?

Two compact sections with no filler: a purpose sentence followed by return format and pagination. The most decision-relevant information (legacy bridge, pair-based lookup) is front-loaded.

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 read tool with a 100% covered input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential usage loop. It doesn 't discuss limits on ids length or deprecation status of the legacy bridge, but those are minor gaps given the structured context.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to restate them. It adds value by specifying the pagination contract (offset += _returned), which connects count/offset to the response's _returned field.

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?

States the operation ('Get mods'), the resource ('mods by (gameId, modId) pairs'), and the API path ('legacy bridge (v2 GraphQL)'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from single-mod getters like nexus_get_mod while keeping the legacy-vs-batch nuance visible.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as nexus_get_mods_batch or nexus_get_mod_v2. The only usage instruction is the pagination loop, which is a how-to, not a selection criterion.

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