Check mod pack health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network reach are known. The description adds real value by disclosing the specific diagnostics produced, but omits cost/scale behavior — with up to 500 mods and open-world lookups a call is potentially slow or rate-limited — and gives no hint of what the result object looks like despite there being no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the diagnostic list after; no filler, no restatement of the name. It reads as a bare feature enumeration rather than prose, which is efficient but slightly telegraphic.

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 two-parameter read-only audit tool with no output schema, enumerating the report categories effectively substitutes for describing return values. What's missing is scale/performance context for a 500-item input and any mention of how results are ordered or whether failures are partial.

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%, including the 'Owner-Name' / 'Owner-Name-1.2.3' format and the list_communities cross-reference, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves — in particular it never explains that supplying a pinned version changes which checks apply (e.g. version conflicts vs outdated).

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?

Specific verb ('Audit') plus resource ('a mod list') followed by an explicit enumeration of the seven conditions detected (not found, removed versions, deprecated, outdated, missing dependencies, version conflicts, duplicates). An agent knows exactly what the tool returns conceptually. It stops short of 5 because it never contrasts itself with the closely related resolve_dependencies sibling, which also operates on a mod list.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you want to audit a mod list. There is no statement of when to prefer it over resolve_dependencies (which presumably fixes the dependency issues this tool reports), no preconditions, and no note that the community must already be identified via list_communities (that hint lives only in the parameter schema).

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