get_modding_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real payload context beyond that: the response includes capabilities, requirements, limitations, execution support and installation evidence, which tells the agent what it will actually receive.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and lookup keys, followed by the payload contents. No filler, no repetition of the name, and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so at a high level (capabilities, requirements, limitations, execution support, installation evidence). Minor gaps remain around error behavior for an unknown ID or alias, and no example of a valid identifier is given.

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 0% (the lone parameter is just titled 'Tool Id'), so the description must compensate — and it does by clarifying that tool_id accepts either a catalog ID or a unique alias, not only an ID. That is meaningful disambiguation beyond the schema, though it gives no format or example values.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a tool') plus the two lookup keys (catalog ID or unique alias), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_modding_tools. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 requirement of an ID or alias implies you call this when you already have a specific tool reference, which implicitly complements list_modding_tools for discovery. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, leaving the routing to inference.

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