bg3_toolkit_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only comparison and explains the success signal ("0 problems = both copies say the same"), which is useful. But it never states explicitly that nothing is modified, nor that a prior export must exist for the comparison to be meaningful, nor any cost/limit behavior for the `limit` parameter.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the comparison target and ending with the interpretation rule. High information density with little waste; the parenthetical path glosses are justified given the 0% schema coverage.

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 detail is not required, and the description covers the comparison's meaning well. The gaps are the unexplained required `layer` parameter and the unstated read-only nature of the operation — enough to leave the definition short of complete for a tool an agent must invoke confidently.

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. It does partially: it explains the two `dest` values with concrete paths ('toolkit': <game>/Data/Editor/Mods/<mod>; 'repo': <mod>/Editor/Mods/<mod>). But `layer` — the sole required parameter — and `limit` are never mentioned, leaving the caller to guess what a layer is and what limiting does.

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 uses a specific verb (compare/check) against a precisely named resource: the mod's Toolkit editor copy vs. an export of its game-ready files, and it spells out the comparison dimensions (missing/extra objects, differing fields per file). It is not tautological. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like bg3_diff or bg3_ingame_check, which an agent must infer.

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?

"Run before publishing" gives a clear trigger context, which is more than most entries provide. However, it names no alternatives and no exclusions — it never says what to use instead when the toolkit copy is missing, or how this relates to bg3_toolkit_export/bg3_ingame_check which plausibly overlap.

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