check_mod_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It mentions the API source and the type of data returned, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any network assumptions, rate limits, or what happens if dependencies are not found.

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 that uses a colon to list key outputs. Every phrase contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool is relatively simple and the description covers its main purpose and outputs. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter-level explanations, it leaves gaps about loader semantics and expected result format that could affect correct invocation.

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%, yet the description only implicitly references mc_version through the 'MC version compatibility list' phrase. It does not explain project_id's role or the optional loader parameter's format/effect, leaving the agent to infer from field names alone.

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's function: querying mod dependency information via the Modrinth API. It names specific outputs (latest compatible version, required/optional dependencies, MC version compatibility list) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_version_info and detect_conflicts.

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?

Usage context is implied by the purpose (when you need dependency info), but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings or any exclusions. No alternative tools are named.

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