bg3_ingame_check

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 usefully explains that the engine silently drops invalid values, which is the reason the check matters, and the framing implies a read-only comparison requiring a running game. However, it does not state mutability, required game/runtime state, or error behavior when a layer is absent.

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 tightly written sentences with the core comparison front-loaded and the silent-drop rationale and the `layers` default appended where they belong. No wasted words.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the comparison purpose is conveyed. But with a required parameter undocumented and no behavioral safety context, the definition is only adequate for a two-parameter diagnostic 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 coverage is 0% and there are two parameters. The description clarifies only `layers` ('what's deployed, default: all'). The required `layer` parameter is left entirely undefined, and the meaning of the singular/plural pair is not disambiguated, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: compare every stats entry a mod layer defines against what the running game actually loaded. This is clearly distinct from sibling lint/static tools. It does not explicitly name the alternative (e.g., bg3_lint_stats), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the parenthetical that the engine drops invalid values silently signals this is a post-deploy diagnostic, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to bg3_lint_stats or bg3_toolkit_check. An agent must infer the context.

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