server_mods

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so exceptionally well. It explicitly states 'Nothing is applied,' explains matching is by Workshop id and never by name, and discloses three categories of things the tool cannot see. This goes far beyond a typical description.

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 front-loaded with purpose and uses bold labels, bullets, and clear separations. The empirical detail about six live servers and 252 distinct offsets is useful but somewhat heavy; it earns its place for port guidance but makes the description denser than strictly necessary.

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?

The description covers the key contextual needs: non-mutating behavior, port semantics, result buckets, and known limitations. It does not clarify whether address is effectively required despite having zero required parameters, nor what timeout means precisely. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values in the description.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for address ('host' or 'host:port') and for query_port (overrides embedded port and must be the QUERY port). The timeout parameter is left without explicit units or behavior, which prevents a higher score.

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 opens with a specific, actionable statement: 'Ask a running server which mods it runs, and PROPOSE an active set.' It clearly identifies the resource (a running server's mods) and the unique contribution (proposing an active set), distinguishing it from siblings like server_status or mod_build.

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 gives strong operational guidance: use the QUERY port, not the game port, and explains with evidence why the game port will fail. It also clarifies how results are bucketed and that nothing is applied. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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