List installed Desynced mods

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states exactly what data is extracted (id/name/version from def.json) and from where (game mods and workspace mods). It does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only operation, but that is strongly implied and no side effects are suggested. It adequately discloses scope and output content.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('List mods in the game's mods directory') and then adds necessary detail (def.json fields, workspace comparison, purpose). No unnecessary words; every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what is listed, the sources (game mods directory and workspace), the extracted fields (id/name/version), and the practical use case (spotting version drift). An agent can call this tool correctly with full confidence in its behavior and expected result.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Per the guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds context about what data is listed, which complements the empty schema adequately.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'mods' (in the game's mods directory and workspace), and specifics like 'id/name/version from each def.json'. It explicitly distinguishes its scope from sibling tools (game status, logs, LUA API, etc.) by focusing on mods and version drift.

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 purpose statement 'to spot version drift between both' implies a clear use case. It does not explicitly say 'use this when you need to compare installed mods vs workspace mods', but the context and sibling tooling make that evident. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the single purpose is clear enough.

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