mod_this_game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (a modding plan with available tools and next steps) and implies a read/analysis workflow, but it never states whether anything is written to disk, whether the game must be closed, or how long analysis takes — significant unknowns for a mutation-adjacent tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and the action pipeline before the routing cue. Every sentence contributes, though the opening "End-to-end game modding assistant" is more label than 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing what is returned (a modding plan plus available tools and next steps). For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the main remaining gap is behavioral (side effects, preconditions), which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions in the schema, so the structured data already does the work. The description adds nothing about game_path or objective (e.g. whether objective is optional or how it shapes the plan), so the 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?

The description names the resource (game modding) and enumerates the concrete actions performed: engine detection, structure analysis, and returning a modding plan. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings such as detect_engine, load_game, or scaffold_mod, so an agent must infer that this is the umbrella entry point rather than the narrower tools.

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?

"Start here when modding a new game" gives a clear triggering condition for when this tool is the right entry point. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. don't use for an already-loaded game, use load_game instead) or naming alternatives, so it is context-rich but not fully routing-complete.

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