modrinth_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific metadata fields returned, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the slug/id doesn't exist). With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It lists the metadata fields in parentheses, which is efficient. No wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states what the tool does and what metadata is returned. The only gap is that it doesn't mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid slug), but given the simplicity and the annotations, this is acceptable. A 4 is appropriate.

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%: the only parameter 'id_or_slug' is described as 'Project slug (e.g. 'no-anvil-limit') or id.' The description adds the example slug and clarifies that it can be either a slug or an id, which is helpful. However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a Modrinth project's metadata by slug or id' and lists the specific metadata fields returned (title, type, loaders, game_versions, published version ids, status). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like modrinth_search_projects (search) and modrinth_list_project_versions (list versions).

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 description implies usage: use this when you need project metadata by slug or id. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling names (search, list versions) provide context. The description could be improved by noting that this is for fetching a single project's metadata, not for searching or listing versions.

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