debug_mod

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state that it only reads files, what permissions/paths it needs, how the two optional params interact, or what output form the 'fixes' take. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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 tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded and nothing wasted. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail rather than compensating for it.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context, yet it omits what the analysis returns, whether fixes are applied or merely suggested, and how the optional params interact. Inadequate for a 2-param diagnostic tool.

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 both parameters (log_path, game_path) are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond it, and notably does not clarify how the two optional params relate (log_path for explicit logs vs game_path for auto-detection).

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Analyze mod logs to diagnose errors and suggest fixes" states what it does and its output intent. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling analyze_bepinex_log, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Given the sibling analyze_bepinex_log, the agent gets no signal about which log-analysis tool to pick or when this one applies instead.

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