check_pack_compatibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the check and outcome, without disclosing whether it reads or modifies files, requires network access, how it determines incompatibility, or how errors are handled.

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 filler or repetition. Every part of the sentence contributes to the stated purpose.

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 two-parameter check with full schema coverage, the description states the purpose and implies the result: potentially incompatible mods. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the agent unsure about side effects, scope, and return format.

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%, so the schema already documents pack_dir and the optional mc_version fallback to version.txt. The description adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: check compatibility of all installed mods in the modpack against a target MC version and find potentially incompatible mods. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_pack_info or resolve_dependencies, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 the tool is used when validating pack compatibility, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as resolve_dependencies or generate_dependency_list. Usage is inferred rather than instructed.

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