find_orphaned_configs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'find config files' which implies a read-only operation, but it never explicitly says it is read-only, whether it returns file paths or names, whether it recurses into subdirectories, or any edge cases (e.g., configs with no mod JAR mapping). The absence of output schema and side-effect disclosure leaves the agent underinformed.

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 concise sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and condition; the second gives usage context. Perfectly structured.

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?

While the purpose is clear and the two params are self-explanatory, the lack of output details and explicit read-only confirmation makes it incomplete for an agent. For a find operation, the return type (file paths, list, count) and any potential side effects (none expected) should be stated, especially given there are no annotations to carry that burden.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('Path to the mods/ directory,' 'Path to the config/ directory'). The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool finds config files whose mod JAR is missing, distinguishing it from siblings like list_mod_configs (lists all) and validate_mod_configs (validates). The specific verb 'find' plus the condition 'JAR no longer present' leaves no ambiguity.

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 a clear trigger context: 'Useful after removing mods.' This indicates when to call it, though it does not mention when *not* to use it or alternatives like read_mod_config to inspect a single config.

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