bg3_lint_progressions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context about game behavior that the schema cannot express: 'the game silently drops those nodes' and 'both load, so their choices/feats stack.' However, it doesn't state whether this is read-only (it is a lint tool, so read-only is implied but unstated), what output looks like, or any rate-limit/performance considerations. For a lint tool the behavior description is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single dense sentence with clear enumeration of the checks performed. Front-loaded with the purpose. No waste, but the density makes it slightly hard to parse; it's efficient though.

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 description explains what the tool checks and includes useful game-mechanics context, but with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves parameter semantics and output format unaddressed. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. For a 2-param lint tool with a focused purpose, this is minimally adequate but incomplete given the schema coverage 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but there are only 2 parameters and the description doesn't describe them at all. The names 'layer' (required) and 'layers' (optional, array, default null) have unknown semantics – does 'layer' identify the primary mod layer? Does 'layers' restrict the check to a subset? The description provides no parameter guidance, which is a gap given the 0% coverage. Baseline for 2 params is 4, but with 0% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it doesn't – so 3.

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 ('static progression checks') and enumerates exactly what is checked: invalid node UUIDs, selectors referencing undefined lists, and same table+level node collisions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the 'static progression checks' framing, though the name itself ('lint') already implies much of this. The detail on what is checked is the strongest element.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't clarify how this differs from related tools like bg3_static, bg3_progression, or bg3_lint_stats, all of which could plausibly overlap. The description explains what it checks but not when an agent should invoke it versus alternatives.

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