mod_impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the scan target (cached mods and drafts), the categories of changes detected, and the return shape (file:line plus the code line and the reason).

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 dense sentence with the analytical scope in front and the return format trailing. The enumeration of change categories is long but each item carries information, so there is little waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the return shape and detection categories, which is helpful. However, for a tool whose primary inputs are two snapshots, the complete silence on how to supply or identify a and b (and on limit) leaves a material gap.

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% and none of the four parameters are described. The text implies 'a' and 'b' are the two snapshots being compared and loosely ties 'include_drafts' to the draft scan, but 'limit' is never mentioned and the expected format/identity of a and b is left unstated.

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 states a specific analytical verb and resource: identifying which cached mods and drafts reference changes between two snapshots, and it enumerates the change categories (unitType ids, build rules, researches, API functions/fields). It is clearly distinct from read-only lookups like get_mod or list_mods, though it never names the closest siblings (diff_game_versions, diff_mod) explicitly.

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 is given. It does not say whether the two snapshots must be produced by snapshot_game, nor how this differs from diff_game_versions or diff_mod, so an agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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