mods

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states that the tool detects mods and lists unmapped entries. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies the save file, or any prerequisites (e.g., need for load order). The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or permissions.

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 of 20 words, which is concise. The main action 'Detect mods' is front-loaded. However, the latter part could be restructured for better readability, perhaps by separating the purpose from the details.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function but lacks specifics: format of the list, what constitutes 'vanilla references', or how mods are detected. The absence of output schema makes the description's role more critical, and it falls short of fully informing an agent.

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?

The input schema provides a detailed description of the 'save_path' parameter (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Detect mods' and specifies the output: listing what couldn't be mapped to vanilla references. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on specific game mechanics. However, the phrase 'modded item ids, unmapped bundle/museum entries' could be clearer, and the description does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools, the agent may struggle to decide when to invoke this tool instead of, e.g., 'find_item' or 'wiki_search'. The description offers no context for selection.

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