bg3_test_run_level

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that cases run one after another (sequential execution), that output is a summary, and that player-mode cases need a hotbar cast, which hints at in-game side effects. It omits execution timing, permissions, rollback/cleanup behavior, and failure handling for a mutation-leaning test runner.

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 front-loaded sentences with a clear primary action followed by selection qualifiers and a secondary note. No filler, though the second sentence's purpose (a warning/list output) is somewhat loosely attached.

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 format need not be explained, but with 6 parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations, the description leaves too much unspecified (layer/layers relationship, wait semantics) for a sequentially-executing test runner. It is not adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0% and there are 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies `build`, `class_name`, and implies `level`, but leaves `layer` vs `layers`, the `wait` timeout, and their interrelation entirely undocumented. Over half the parameters carry no meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: run every automated case for a level sequentially and summarize. It also scopes selection to `build`-assigned cases or a `class_name`'s cases. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling bg3_test_run, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Gives the condition for which cases are selected (build-assigned via bg3_test_plan, or all of class_name's at that level), and cross-references bg3_test_plan. However it offers no when-not guidance and does not say why an agent should pick this over bg3_test_run or bg3_test_verify.

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