bg3_test_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key destructive behavior: it removes every spawn, test boost and applied status. That is exactly the side effect an agent must know before calling it. It stops short of stating permission requirements, reversibility, or whether cleanup happens even on failure.

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?

Everything is packed into a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and ends with the side effect. It is dense but each clause carries real information, with no filler.

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, and the destructive cleanup is covered. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, an agent still lacks guidance on wait/layers semantics and on when this tool should be chosen over its cleanup and run siblings.

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 for all three parameters, but it does not. 'Remove every spawn, test boost and applied status' loosely maps to the cleanup flag, while wait and layers are never explained in the description or the schema.

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 specific verbs (evaluate, report, remove) and a specific resource (the staged case's expectations, including before/after snapshots and recorded events). It clearly reads as the verification step of a stage→run→verify workflow. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like bg3_test_cleanup or bg3_test_plan, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'the staged case' signals this runs after bg3_test_stage and produces PASS/FAIL results. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative such as bg3_test_cleanup for cleanup-only or bg3_test_run for execution.

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