bg3_test_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully reveals a side effect — it writes a markdown file to <mod>/docs/test-scripts/plan-<build>.md — and the derivation rule (spells must be learnable by their test level). It does not disclose error behavior, whether it overwrites an existing plan, or what inputs (layer vs layers) affect the result.

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?

Two dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; the parenthetical spelling out the choice types and the output path are both load-bearing. Slightly overpacked but efficient.

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. But for a generative, file-writing tool with no annotations and three undocumented parameters, the description leaves key operational questions open — notably the layer/layers distinction and whether prerequisite test staging or an existing plan matters.

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% for 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies that 'build' refers to a [[build]] entry in the suite TOML, but 'layer' and 'layers' (including the required-vs-optional relationship and why both exist) are never explained, leaving the most confusing 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?

The description states the resource precisely — a step-by-step level-up plan for a test build, including subclass/spell/feat choices and the tests that run at each level — which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like bg3_test_script or bg3_progression. However, the verb is implicit ('The step-by-step plan'), so it is ambiguous whether the tool generates, reads, or refreshes the plan; the trailing 'Written to <path>' hints at generation but does not say so outright.

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 versus alternatives such as bg3_test_script, bg3_test_list, or bg3_progression, and no prerequisites (e.g., must the build's tests already be staged via bg3_test_stage?). Usage must be inferred entirely from the description of output.

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