get_mod_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '查询' implies a read-only operation and the return fields are enumerated, which helps, but there is nothing about behavior for invalid/missing project IDs, response size (version lists can be large), or pagination.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero padding, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a tight enumeration of the return fields. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by listing the data categories returned (versions, dependencies, MC versions, download links). For a simple one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only error handling is unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents that it accepts a Modrinth project ID or slug with examples. The description adds no additional meaning about accepted formats or fallback behavior, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (mod on Modrinth) and enumerates what is returned: version list, dependencies, supported MC versions, download links. That distinguishes it well from search_mods and get_pack_info, though siblings are not named explicitly.

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 is only implied: the required project_id signals that an agent must already know a project, which distinguishes it from search_mods, but the description never says 'use this when you have an ID, use search_mods to find one'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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