Get Mod Bug Reports

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds beyond annotations by specifying pagination ('10 per page') and the authentication nuance ('private reports need the author's session'), both of which are useful behavioral details not captured in the schema or annotations.

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 front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: purpose, fields, pagination, and auth requirements. No filler or redundancy. The structure is easy to scan and directly supports agent decision-making.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: it lists the returned fields, states pagination (10 per page), and notes authentication requirements. It does not describe error conditions or how to filter by status, but those are partly in the schema. Overall, it is reasonably complete for an agent to call 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 coverage is only 25% (only 'game' has a description), so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain mod_id, page, or status semantics; the only hint is '10 per page', which indirectly relates to pagination but does not clarify parameter usage or the meaning of the status enum. The listed output fields are helpful but not parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('List'), resource ('a mod's bug reports'), and clarifies it refers to the Bugs tab. It also enumerates the returned fields (id, title, status, replies, version, priority, last post), which makes the tool's scope unmistakable and distinguishes it from the singular get_mod_bug sibling.

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 provides useful context about authentication ('Works without login') but does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over get_mod_bug or other bug-related siblings. It implies usage via the plural 'bug reports' but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or conditions that would select a different tool.

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