mod_test_start

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that install does not execute the mod, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the process is asynchronous, what side effects occur, or required state (e.g., mod must exist). Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main action, but it omits essential details. While concise, it sacrifices completeness, making it minimally acceptable.

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 destructive tool with 5 parameters (1 required) and no schema description coverage, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the process, return values, errors, or interactions with sibling tools. Even with an output schema, the description provides too little context.

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 0%, yet the description only implicitly references the install parameter. It fails to explain mod_name, pack, overwrite, confirm_install, their defaults, or how they affect behavior. This is insufficient compensation.

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 clearly states the tool starts static validate/pack checks and clarifies that optional install does not execute the mod. The verb 'start' and resource 'validate/pack checks' are specific, and the distinction from sibling tools like mod_validate and mod_pack is implied.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like mod_validate, mod_pack, or mod_install. The description only mentions that install does not execute the mod, but does not explain the intended workflow or prerequisites.

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