Compares a named Baldur's Gate 3 stats entry in one mod layer with the layers below it, revealing exactly what that layer changes.
What layer changes about stats entry NAME compared with the layers below it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| layer | Yes | ||
| layers | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, how layers are resolved, or any error/side-effect behavior beyond the basic diff concept.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, using backticks to call out key inputs. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though the terseness leaves important details unstated.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not strictly needed, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description should do more. It omits usage context and parameter meaning, making it incomplete for a three-parameter diff 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are three parameters, but the description only loosely indicates that `layer` and NAME are involved. It does not explain the optional `layers` parameter or clarify accepted layer/name formats, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.
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 states a specific operation: showing what a given `layer` changes about a stats entry NAME relative to lower layers. It is clear enough to distinguish from direct retrieval tools like bg3_get_entry, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bg3_get_entry, bg3_layers, or other inspection tools. Usage is only loosely implied by the diff wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.