bg3_effect

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies the return shape (MultiEffectInfo with names, bones, duration, looping, .lsfx) and notes it lists using stats entries, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, what happens on an unknown GUID, error behavior, or the purpose of 'layers'.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Dense but organized; the only minor cost is that the return-shape enumeration makes it slightly list-heavy.

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 values needn't be described, and the description does add provenance (stats entries that use it). However, with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the undefined 'layers' parameter and absent behavioral/error detail leave real gaps for a two-parameter resolver.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains what a GUID resolves to but never defines the 'layers' parameter or the expected GUID format (none/guid/lsfx), leaving a required and an optional parameter effectively 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?

States a specific verb (Resolve) and resource (an effect GUID, spanning MultiEffectInfo or a single effect resource), and enumerates the returned component fields. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't name the sibling bg3_search_effects (which searches rather than resolves), leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. An agent seeing both bg3_effect and bg3_search_effects gets no guidance on which to pick; the role of the 'layers' parameter is also unexplained.

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