mod_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details—pagination and the exact fields returned—but does not disclose error behavior, ordering, or what happens when no object is selected.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but not harmful; every substantive fact—scope, output fields, pagination—is present without padding.

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 simple read-only list tool, this is adequately complete: it names the output fields and pagination, the schema covers all optional parameters, and annotations cover safety. A more detailed response structure or explicit note about the selection fallback would make it fully complete.

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 limit, offset, and objects are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline.

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') with a clear resource ('an object's modifier stack') and enumerates the exact returned fields: index, name, class, and enabled state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify or remove 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?

The intended use is strongly implied: call this when you need to inspect the modifier stack. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as mod_remove/mod_enable for mutations, and the fallback to current selection is only documented in the parameter schema, not the description.

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