bg3_get_entry

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 discloses that the tool resolves through inheritance, shows the `using` chain, and reports which layer/source set each field, which is useful. However, it does not state read-only safety, side effects, or any constraints, leaving gaps for an operation with no annotations.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the output behavior, making it easy to scan.

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 need not be explained here. With three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is only partially complete: it implies layer and provenance behavior but omits parameter specifications, defaults, and any usage prerequisites. It is adequate at a high level but leaves actionable gaps for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters. The description only vaguely alludes to `layers` ("selected layers") and `provenance` ("per field, the layer/source that set it"), but does not define any parameter explicitly, explain defaults, or clarify the `name` input format. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb (Resolve) and resource (stats entry), with examples of entry types. It also explains the key behavior (inheritance via layers, showing the `using` chain and source per field), which helps distinguish it from less specialized siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast against alternative tools like bg3_search or bg3_static, so sibling differentiation remains 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or excluded scenarios. While its purpose suggests it is for resolving entries with inheritance, there is no explicit context for selection among the many bg3_* siblings.

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