nexus_mod

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by flagging that mod descriptions are untrusted content, a prompt-injection caveat the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing response shape or recovery from an unknown modId.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation stated first and the trust caveat second; nothing is padded. The second sentence is arguably a warning rather than definition, but it earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate: it covers purpose and the untrusted-content risk. It is missing what metadata is actually returned and any error behavior for invalid game domains or mod ids.

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 50%: the 'game' domain is documented with an example, while modId is undocumented but self-evident from its name and positive-integer constraint. The description adds nothing about parameter format, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not more than baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get mod metadata') and adds the access path ('legacy API/Vortex client'), which distinguishes it from the v3 siblings such as nexus_v3_mod. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the legacy-vs-v3 split.

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 when-to-use guidance or comparison against nexus_v3_mod, nexus_mod_files, or nexus_mod_feed. The phrase 'supported legacy API' is context, not a selection rule, so the agent must guess which mod-metadata tool applies.

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