get_rp_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. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about network/remote dependency on Modrinth, error behavior for unknown slugs, rate limits, or whether fields are cached — all relevant for a remote-fetch tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource, qualifier, and lookup key all appear in order of importance.

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?

With one parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description needn't document returns in depth — but 'detailed info' is left unexpanded, so an agent cannot anticipate what fields come back versus read_packmeta or list_rp_assets.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining 'Resource pack slug or project ID on Modrinth.' The description merely restates this, adding no format examples or accepted ID shapes.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed info about a Modrinth resource pack'), plus the lookup key. It is distinguishable from search_rp_on_modrinth by the word 'detailed' and the direct-lookup framing, though it never names siblings.

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 phrase 'by its slug or project ID' implies the lookup precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. search_rp_on_modrinth or the local-pack siblings (read_packmeta, list_rp_assets), and no statement of what happens if the pack doesn't exist.

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