get_load_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it details parsing of Plugins.txt, the '*' prefix, Data folder listing, both mismatch directions, exclusion of implicit plugins, MO2 handling with a reliability flag, and explicitly states 'Read-only'. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the tool's name.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value: it front-loads the main purpose, then systematically explains the parsing logic, mismatch reporting, implicit plugin exclusions, MO2 caveat, and safety. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, zero parameters, and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all edge cases (missing files, extra files, implicit plugins, MO2 virtualization) and clearly defines the tool's behavior in each scenario, leaving no significant ambiguity for the 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it sufficiently explains the tool's operation without referencing parameters.

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 reads the live Fallout 4 load order and cross-checks it against Data, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on load order integrity, distinct from crash logs, environment scans, or diagnostics.

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 implies when to use (to investigate load order mismatches causing missing-master crashes) and explicitly mentions a caveat for MO2 users, stating the cross-check is skipped. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a direct 'use this when' statement.

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