nexus_get_mods_batch

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the v2 GraphQL backing, the quota behavior, and the exact return shape (totalResolved, _returned, mods with the same shape as nexus_search_mods nodes). This is strong but not maximal; it does not mention any v2-specific limits or error behavior.

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 well-organized into purpose, quota context, and return shape, with the most important information front-loaded. It is compact, though the second sentence slightly restates the v2 GraphQL point already introduced in the first sentence, preventing a perfect score.

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 batch read tool, the description supplies all key non-schema context: when to use it, what quota it preserves, how it relates to nexus_get_mod, and what the response looks like. Combined with fully documented parameters and read-only/idempotent annotations, an agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly.

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 each parameter already has a clear description with format, example, defaults, and bounds. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), names the resource ('many mods'), and sets clear scope ('across games', 'single v2 GraphQL query'). It also explicitly positions itself as the 'Batch equivalent of nexus_get_mod', which distinguishes it from that sibling without needing to open the schema.

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 states when to use it: 'ideal for resolving many mod IDs at once'. It names the single-item alternative, nexus_get_mod, and adds a concrete selection factor by noting it does NOT consume the v1 REST rate-limit quota. This gives an agent enough context to choose between batch and single-fetch tools.

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