bg3_toolkit_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses scope (which directories are inspected) and the kinds of facts returned (link status, file counts, meta.lsx version), which implies a read-only diagnostic. However, it never states that it is non-mutating or whether it has any side effects.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the tool's scope and enumerates its outputs, with no filler. The parenthetical placement is slightly awkward but does not impede comprehension.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description does outline what is reported. The gaps are the completely undocumented required 'layer' parameter and the absence of any guidance distinguishing this from bg3_toolkit_check/bg3_toolkit_export.

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% and the single required parameter 'layer' is never named or explained. The parenthetical directory list (Data/Projects, Mods, Public, Editor/Mods) may allude to possible layer values, but the description does not connect it to the parameter or define accepted values.

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 clearly states what the tool reports: presence/missing status of the mod in the expected Larian Toolkit directories, whether it is linked to the repo or a separate copy, file counts, and the meta.lsx version. It reads as a specific status/inspection tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling bg3_toolkit_check.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set contains bg3_toolkit_check, bg3_toolkit_export, and bg3_deploy, which plausibly overlap, yet the description offers no selection criteria, preconditions, or exclusions.

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