mod_get_params

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that the read is per-instance ('按实例读取') and that results are paginated, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 bilingual description is compact: two clauses state the purpose, instance scope, and pagination. No filler or repetition beyond the intentional English mirror.

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 read-only getter with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description covers what is returned (all properties with current values), how it is scoped (instance), and pagination behavior. No output schema exists, but the return content is sufficiently described.

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%, so the schema already explains modifier, limit, offset, and objects. The description's only added parameter-related signal is pagination, which maps to limit/offset but adds no new semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('every readable/writable property of a modifier') and clarifies it reads current values from the instance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mod_set_params (write) and mod_list (list modifiers).

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?

It clearly frames when to use the tool: when you need all readable/writable properties and their current values for a specific modifier instance, with pagination. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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