Get Mod (v1)

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

Annotations already convey the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a small but useful behavioral detail: the result includes the caller's own endorsement status, which implies an auth-dependent field. No contradiction exists, but no additional behavioral context beyond that is provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that leads with 'Full mod info' and uses a colon list to enumerate fields. Each listed item is relevant and earns its place, though the list makes it slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with safe annotations and no output schema, the field list effectively serves as the return contract. The main gaps are the absence of routing guidance toward sibling tools and no mention of whether the endorsement-status field requires authentication, though these are minor given the simple scope.

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 coverage is 100%: both game and mod_id have descriptive text and examples. The description contributes no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage 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 states the verb 'get' and the resource 'mod', then enumerates the returned fields (name, version, author, status, downloads, endorsements, dates, summary, endorsement status). This makes the operation clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling get_mod_details, which likely overlaps in 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_mod_details, get_mod_files, or get_endorsements. With several mod-related siblings, an agent must guess which tool to invoke, since the description only states what the tool returns, not when it is the right choice.

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