bg3_se_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose useful context: the command goes to the running game, log lines are captured for `wait` seconds, and the cap is 60. It says nothing about side effects of arbitrary commands, whether the game must be running, or what happens on timeout.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first, then the return behavior, then the wait cap. Tight and waste-free, though the parenthetical example slightly interrupts the flow.

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 the return-value description need not be exhaustive. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an unmentioned `context` parameter, the definition is only minimally complete for a command-execution tool that can have real in-game side effects.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives the `line` semantics via an example and explains `wait` as seconds with a max of 60, which adds real value, but the `context` parameter (default 'server') is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters 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 and resource: 'Send one Script Extender console line to the running game', and the inline example ('!apofeature Barbarian_PersistentRage') makes the action concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like bg3_se_eval, so an agent must infer that this is a raw console line rather than a Lua evaluation.

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 only implied by the example and the 'running game' qualifier; there is no stated when-to-use vs bg3_se_eval or the other se_* tools, and no mention of prerequisites like the game being live. Adequate for a console-send tool but leaves routing to inference.

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