nexus_get_mod_changelogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying the exact return structure (JSON dict mapping version to list of HTML strings), which informs the agent about the output format beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and well-structured: a single clear purpose sentence followed by a 'Returns' section that explains the output format with an example. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and every sentence contributes meaning.

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 simplicity, the rich schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It provides the return format and purpose. Minor gaps like error handling or edge cases (e.g., non-existent mod) are not mentioned, but these are not critical for a simple read operation, so a score of 4 is reasonable.

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%, with both parameters (mod_id and domain_name) fully described. The description adds no additional parameter information, but since the schema already documents them thoroughly, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool retrieves changelog history for a single mod with the specific verb 'get' and resource 'changelog history'. The scope 'for one mod' differentiates it from similar tools like nexus_get_mod or nexus_get_mod_files, and the example return format further clarifies its purpose.

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 when changelog history is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and purpose.

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