bg3_static

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add two genuinely non-obvious behaviors: layer precedence ('highest layer wins') and that a partial key returns a match list rather than a single record. However, it says nothing about error behavior when a key misses, permissions, or the effect of the optional 'layers' parameter on resolution, which is precisely where an agent would need guidance.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the lookup mechanism comes first, followed by the kind taxonomy. The parenthetical annotations (ProgressionTableUUID, MaxValue/ReplenishType) are compact and earn their place. No filler sentences, though the run-on parenthetical style is slightly hard to parse.

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 documentation is not required, and the description supplies the domain taxonomy plus layer and partial-match semantics needed to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap is routing: nothing tells the agent how this tool relates to the other 40-odd bg3_* lookups it sits among.

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, and it does substantially: 'kind' is effectively enumerated with the four accepted domain values, 'key' is documented as accepting UUID or partial Name with list semantics, and 'layers' is indirectly explained by 'highest layer wins'. This is meaningful added meaning over three bare-string parameters, though the 'layers' parameter's own format and defaults are only inferable.

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 resource (static game data) and its lookup keys (UUID or Name), then enumerates the four domains (ClassDescription, LevelMapSeries, ActionResourceDefinition, Feat) an agent can request. This is far more concrete than a tautology, but it never contrasts itself with the many sibling lookup tools such as bg3_search or bg3_get_entry, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to reach for.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative tool is named despite a crowded sibling list containing bg3_search, bg3_get_entry, bg3_references, and bg3_progression. Usage is only weakly implied by the enumerated kind values.

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