bg3_environment

Does 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 implicitly communicates a read-only inspection (it says 'what this machine looks like,' not that it changes anything), and it discloses the breadth of discovery (Steam/GOG/configured install, mod managers, layer deploy states). However, it never confirms it is side-effect-free and says nothing about refresh/caching or rate behavior, which matters for a discovery tool.

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?

It is a single sentence, but it is a very long one with a sprawling list separated by commas and a dangling 'and what they mean for hand-deployed paks.' The core purpose is not front-loaded; an agent must read to the end to infer that this is a discovery/environment report.

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 needn't be restated, and the description lists the major facets covered. But for a zero-param discovery tool with no annotations and 45+ siblings, the description gives no signal about when to reach for it versus bg3_layers, bg3_toolkit_status, or bg3_se_status, leaving a real selection gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly contains no parameter discussion because none are needed.

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 names the resource ('this machine' as seen by bg3-data) and enumerates the specific environment facets it reports (OS, game install, exe paths, mod managers, mod layer states). It is clear what the tool does, but the phrasing 'What this machine looks like to bg3-data' is somewhat literary rather than an action verb, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling introspection tools (bg3_layers, bg3_toolkit_status, bg3_se_status).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement that this should be called to discover paths before deploying mods, no exclusion of when another tool (e.g., bg3_layers) is more appropriate. The list of contents implies a discovery role but never states it.

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