Build the mod

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

Both annotations are neutral (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the full disclosure burden — and it delivers exceptionally. It discloses timeout semantics (reports timeout rather than a fake compile failure), the tModLoader game-open refusal with its fix, and the unreliability of the exit code, teaching the agent to read success from output. This is precisely the context that prevents misdiagnosing a time-out or game-open error as a syntax failure.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a param section and then two behavioral paragraphs. It is somewhat long, but every paragraph earns its place: each behavioral note conveys critical, non-obvious information that an agent needs to interpret build results correctly. No wasted sentences.

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?

Given 1 optional parameter, an output schema (relieving the description of return-value duty), and no nested objects, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the single parameter, and all three failure modes (timeout, game open, unreliable exit code). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it fully does for the single timeout parameter. It specifies units (seconds), explains why the default may be inadequate on slow machines, and describes the failure-reporting nuance. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, which only had a title and default value.

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 opening sentence 'Compile the configured mod source into a .tmod' states a specific verb, resource, and output artifact, making the purpose unmistakable. Among the 25 siblings (launch, restart, stop, commands, diag), none compete as a build tool, so it is naturally distinct — though the description doesn't explicitly name any alternative.

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 purpose implies when to use it (when you want a compiled .tmod from the configured source), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. The behavioral paragraphs describe failure modes, not usage context, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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