Mods Updated In Period (v1)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the detail that results include timestamps, which is not specified in the schema or annotations. This is helpful but limited—no mention of pagination, rate limits, or error cases. Given the strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a direct usage hint. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word is useful. The structure is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential return value (IDs and timestamps) and the intended use case. It does not mention how to handle pagination with 'limit' or the exact format of timestamps, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage. It is nearly complete.

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 low (33%), with only 'game' having a description. The description implicitly maps the 'period' enum to 'last day/week/month' but does not explicitly name the parameter or explain 'limit' or the default. It adds some value for 'period' but leaves 'limit' and 'game' (already described) untouched. The description does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of 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 tool's function: it returns IDs of mods updated in a given time period (day/week/month), with timestamps. The verb 'get' and resource 'updated mods' are specific, and the period options are explicitly mentioned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_mods (all mods) and get_mod (single mod) by focusing on recently updated mods.

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 a concrete use case: 'Use to check tracked mods for updates.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, leaving some ambiguity. Still, the given context is clear enough for most agents.

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