List Mod Files (v1)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific output fields but does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, ordering, or limits. For a read-only list tool, the annotations lower the bar, and the field enumeration adds modest value, but behavioral details are sparse.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the primary action and resource, then lists the output fields, and ends with the optional filter. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by explicitly listing the returned fields. The three parameters are all described in the schema, and the tool's complexity is low. It might have mentioned pagination or result ordering, but for a straightforward list operation, the information provided is nearly sufficient 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (game, mod_id, category) are fully documented in the schema. The description only reiterates the optional category filter, which adds no new meaning beyond the schema's enum description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the 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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('a mod's files'), and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (file_id, name, version, category, size, upload date). It also notes the optional category filter. This is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from single-file tools like get_mod_file or version-history tools like get_mod_file_versions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_mod_file, get_mod_file_versions, or list_mods. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. While the tool's purpose is clear, an agent has no explicit direction for choosing it among the many file- and mod-related siblings.

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