read_mod_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool reads and parses and returns a parsed config tree, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose error behavior on missing or malformed files, nor the exact structure of the returned tree.

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 deliver the core action, format constraints, and return type without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, but there is no output schema or annotations to fill in the gaps. The phrase 'parsed config tree' is vague about the actual return shape, and error conditions are not covered, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to handle failures.

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 100% for the single configPath parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful format-to-loader mapping (.cfg for Forge, .toml for Fabric, .json for any) that goes beyond the schema's generic path 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Read and parse a mod config file') and specifies supported formats (.cfg for Forge, .toml for Fabric, .json for any). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mod_configs or validate_mod_configs, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage context by naming when each format applies, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or refer to sibling tools such as get_mod_default_config or compare_mod_configs.

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