bg3_se_live_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially. It usefully discloses output behavior (each field shown as MATCH or DIFF) and implies a read-only comparison, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or whether it touches the running game state.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core comparison is stated first. The domain jargon ('SE', 'index') is dense but the structure itself is tight.

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 format need not be explained. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits what `name` and `fields` mean and what 'the index' refers to, leaving an agent unable to fully invoke it from the description alone.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `layers` parameter meaningfully ('the index's resolution for layers', 'pick layers matching what's deployed') but leaves `name` and `fields` entirely unexplained, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it compares a stats entry as the running game loaded it against the index's resolution. 'Ground truth' frames it as a verification/diagnostic tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like bg3_get_entry, bg3_diff, or bg3_ingame_check, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only usage-like sentence, 'Pick layers matching what's deployed,' is guidance about the layers argument, not about when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no when/when-not framing and no named alternative among the many siblings.

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