nexus_mod_feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful feed-vs-search distinction, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or return-shape behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key disambiguation. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only feed tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, feed modes, and the main usage boundary. It omits minor details like default feed value and required game parameter, but those are available in the schema.

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 only 50%: the game parameter is documented by the schema pattern/description, while the feed enum has no schema description. The description compensates by naming the three feed modes in natural language, but it does not explain the required game domain or default behavior.

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 verb and resource ('Get ... mods') and enumerates the three feed scopes: trending, newly added, recently updated. It also distinguishes the tool from full-text search, helping separate it from sibling mod-search tools.

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?

The sentence 'This is a feed, not full-text search' clearly frames the intended use case and excludes full-text search behavior. It does not name the competing search tool explicitly, but the usage boundary is clear for an agent.

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