list_modding_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one piece of return context ('entries report integration level') but says nothing about paging behavior or how limit/offset interact, which would be useful given the idempotent-list nature.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the content scope is front-loaded. It is efficient rather than padded.

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 filterable, paginated list tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description omits filtering semantics, paging rules, and the relationship to the singular get_modding_tool. An agent has to guess how to narrow or page results.

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 0% for four parameters. The enumerated categories (converters, editors, frameworks, components) plausibly map to the `kind` filter, but the link is never made explicit, and `query`, `limit`, and `offset` are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names the resource (modding tools) and enumerates the categories it covers: converters, editors, frameworks, File Monolith/MakeBite components, and linked repositories. 'Browse' is softer than 'list', and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like list_additional_sources, but the scope of the resource is unmistakable.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The obvious pairing with get_modding_tool for detail retrieval, and the difference from search/fetch, are never mentioned, so the agent must infer that this is the enumeration entry point.

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