get_mod

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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent, read-only profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: the version default (latest) and the 'auto' resolution order (draft in modsStorage/draft if present, else published cache). It does not disclose output truncation implied by max_chars, but the resolution-order detail is genuine behavioral value.

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 front-loaded with the resource and then lists parameter facts in semicolon-separated clauses with essentially zero filler. The telegraphic, fragment-heavy style is efficient, though it occasionally trades clarity for brevity.

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 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers most parameter semantics but omits max_chars and never characterizes the returned source (format/size). With no output schema present, that omission leaves a real gap an agent would want closed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for four of five parameters: mod_id accepted formats ('mod-...' or bare id), version defaulting to latest, kind values ('lua'/'prm'), and source values with their semantics. Only max_chars (default 60000, implying truncation) is left entirely undocumented.

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 phrase 'Source of a mod' states the resource returned but is a noun fragment with no explicit verb, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like search_mod_code, diff_mod, or lint_mod that also touch mod content. An agent can infer it fetches source, but the purpose is only vaguely bounded relative to the tool family.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The explanation of the 'source' values ('auto'/'draft'/'cache') describes a parameter's behavior rather than when this tool should be chosen over siblings.

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