Compare two Minecraft modpack directories to identify added, removed, and updated mods, enabling clear changelog generation of differences.
比较两个整合包目录的差异，返回新增、删除、更新的模组列表
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_pack_dir | Yes | 新版本整合包根目录路径 | |
| old_pack_dir | Yes | 旧版本整合包根目录路径 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result contains added, deleted, and updated mod lists, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it follows nested directories, or any path/permission expectations.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It states the action and return categories efficiently.
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 simple two-parameter read/comparison tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains both inputs and the returned change categories. It is missing only sibling-tool routing and explicit safety/behavioral context.
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 100%, and the schema already documents both required parameters as old and new modpack root paths. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond identifying the two directories, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: comparing two modpack directories and returning added/deleted/updated mod lists. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling changelog-generation tools that may compare similar inputs.
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 implies when to use it—when comparing two modpack directories—but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over generate_changelog or generate_full_changelog. No exclusions or alternative-selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.