mod_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read-only operation. The description adds nothing contradictory and mentions validation checks, which is consistent with annotations. However, it does not elaborate on limitations or side effects (none expected).

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 a single sentence listing validation types, which is concise. It front-loads the action 'Validate' immediately. No wasted words, though it could be structured with bullets for clarity.

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?

The description lists what is validated but omits the output format (though output schema exists), error handling, or any behavior details. Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is moderately complete but leaves gaps.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'mod_name' (type string) with no description. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning (e.g., mod folder name). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but fails.

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 validates multiple aspects (paths, sizes, manifests, JSON, symlinks, risky Lua patterns). The verb 'Validate' and specific resources are evident. However, the context of 'mod' is implicit from the tool name and sibling tools, not explicitly stated.

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 usage guidelines provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mod_install, mod_pack, mod_scaffold). The description does not specify prerequisites or post-conditions.

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