nexus_v3_files

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 genuinely useful context by labeling the tool 'experimental,' but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or failure modes.

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, both load-bearing: the first establishes scope and identity, the second establishes prerequisite and stability caveat. No filler, though the phrasing is telegraphic rather than fully formed.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: the correct ID namespace and the required prior call. Only return-value behavior is left unstated, which is acceptable given the low complexity.

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 100%, and the schema itself explains that modUid is the global identifier rather than the game-scoped website ID. The description restates the GLOBAL emphasis but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get), resource (mod files), and scoping detail (API v3, GLOBAL mod ID), which lets an agent distinguish it from the legacy sibling nexus_mod_files. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so differentiation is implicit rather than 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?

Gives a clear sequencing prerequisite — 'use nexus_v3_mod first' — and flags the tool as experimental, which tells the agent to prefer alternatives when stability matters. It does not explicitly say when to choose nexus_v3_files over nexus_mod_files, leaving that inference to the v3/legacy naming.

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