Get Mod File (v1)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of what 'details' includes (e.g., file size, upload date), no note on error conditions (e.g., file not found), and no hint of return structure. Given no output schema exists, the description fails to compensate.

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 (one short phrase), but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks any front-loading of key constraints or context. While brevity is a virtue, it is not paired with the informational density expected for a useful tool description.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the nature of 'details' (e.g., whether it returns metadata, download URLs, or version history), nor does it mention any associated operations or error handling. An agent would need to call the tool or inspect sibling tools to understand what it returns.

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 each parameter (game, mod_id, file_id) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantics—it only says 'Details for one mod file,' which does not clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('get' a mod file) but the object is vague: 'Details' gives no specificity about what kind of details (metadata, download info, changelog). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_mod_files (list) or get_mod_file_versions (version list), both of which overlap 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely says 'Details for one mod file' with no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining file_id via get_mod_files), no contrast with get_mod_files or get_mod_file_versions, and no exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema and name.

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