get_modpack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does explain the output structure (summary, available versions, latest version), but it omits potential prerequisites like needing HMCL to be started or installed, and any side effects (though 'get' implies read-only). It adds some useful context like 'through HMCL', but not enough to fully satisfy transparency.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, input semantics for the key parameter, and expected output fields. No redundancy or unnecessary 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?

The description gives a good overview of what the tool returns and the input id format, but it leaves out important context: what 'through HMCL' implies (e.g., whether HMCL must be running), and the role of the optional 'source' parameter. Without an output schema or annotations, these gaps reduce completeness for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'id' parameter as 'Modrinth slug or CurseForge slug', which is helpful, but it does not explain the 'source' parameter at all, even though it has an enum. This omission is significant, especially since source disambiguates the id platform.

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 function: 'Get details of a modpack project' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like search_modpacks, download_modpack, and install_modpack by focusing on retrieving summary and version details for a specified id.

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 provides clear context on usage: it's for retrieving details of a modpack by its Modrinth or CurseForge slug, and it specifies the returned information. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it's not a 5.

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