bg3_se_status

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 what is inspected (running process, per-run SE log, game state), which signals a read-only diagnostic, but omits any note on side effects, cost, or failure behavior. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary question (is the game running) and then lists the two secondary outputs. No filler, though the list-of-three construction is slightly dense.

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 no explanation in the description, and a zero-parameter status tool is inherently simple. The remaining gap is usage context against sibling status/log tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly does not pad with parameter talk that does not exist.

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 names three concrete things the tool answers: whether the game is running, which Script Extender log belongs to the current run, and the latest game state. That is a specific verb-less but resource-specific purpose an agent can act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like bg3_se_log or bg3_toolkit_status, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 implies a diagnostic/status-check usage but never states when to reach for this versus bg3_se_log (log retrieval) or bg3_toolkit_status (toolkit status). No exclusions or alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer the correct routing.

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