validate_mod

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that checks default to all, and that unknown_script is skipped if script_docs not loaded 'rather than guessed at', revealing non-failure behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether validation is read-only or may produce side effects, nor response behavior (but output schema exists).

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 tight sentences; first states the main action, second gives parameter details and default. No filler.

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 one-parameter validation tool, the description covers the main action, allowed check types, defaults, and conditional behavior. Output schema handles return structure. No significant gaps.

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 has no description for 'checks', but the description lists all acceptable values (syntax, encoding, duplicates, localisation, unknown_script, shadowing) and explains default null means all. It also gives a caveat for unknown_script, fully compensating for zero schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Run validation over the loaded mod(s)', identifying a specific action and resource. The checks list further specifies scope. Distinct from sibling tools which are read/search operations.

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?

Provides context on when to use: validates loaded mods with configurable checks. Notes the default behavior and the special requirement for unknown_script (needs script_docs loaded), giving conditional guidance. Does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools are all distinct in purpose.

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