nexus_get_mod_v2

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description warns that the description field contains literal '<br />' tags requiring rendering or stripping, and clarifies the API backend is v2 GraphQL and does not consume v1 REST quota. It also discloses the exact return shape. This is useful behavioral context on top of the annotations, though auth/error behavior is not mentioned.

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 organized into three tight sections: purpose/contrast, backend/rate-limit note, and return structure. Every sentence contributes, and the return JSON block is concise despite its detail. It earns its length for a data-rich tool, though it could be slightly shorter without losing value.

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 an output schema present and a detailed return description, the agent has everything needed to call the tool and interpret results. The description covers the notable BBCode escaping quirk, required parameters are in the schema, and annotations cover safety. Missing items like authentication prerequisites and error cases are minor for a read-only getter.

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%: both mod_id and domain_name are documented in the input schema, including an example for domain_name. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Get rich mod details via v2 GraphQL' and immediately enumerates the distinguishing payload: full description (raw BBCode), tags, requirements, and complete file list. It explicitly contrasts with v1 REST ('none of which v1 REST exposes'), making the tool's purpose and scope unambiguous even among many siblings.

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 tells the agent when to prefer this tool: when rich fields like BBCode description, tags, requirements, or full file list are needed, and when avoiding the v1 REST rate-limit quota matters. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool like 'use nexus_get_mod for basic info', so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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