bg3_test_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only mentions that results are validated against the index. It says nothing about read-only behavior, error handling when a layer has no tests, or what validation failures look like.

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 no filler. The parenthetical path detail is dense but earns its place by identifying the source of the data.

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 not be described, which lifts this above the floor. Still, three of four parameters and all usage guidance are undocumented, leaving the definition thin for a 4-parameter tool.

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% across 4 parameters. The description hints at 'layer' via 'mod layer' but leaves 'level', 'layers', and 'class_name' entirely unexplained in both schema and prose, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific resource (test cases a mod layer defines) and its source locations (TOML under <mod>/tests/bg3 or layers.json `tests`), which is more than a tautology. However, it never states the verb explicitly and does not distinguish itself from sibling test tools like bg3_test_plan, bg3_test_verify, or bg3_test_run, so an agent must infer the listing behavior from the name alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from the many sibling bg3_test_* tools. A reader gets the data source but no routing guidance.

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