geck_esp_list_refs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and 'from an .esp/.esm file' indicates it works on file data rather than live editor state. It does not mention prerequisites or side effects, but the core behavior is sufficiently transparent for a read-only listing tool.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates operation, record type, and file scope directly, making every word useful.

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 output schema covers the return shape, and the operation is simple, so the description is adequate for a basic invocation. However, it leaves game_dir ambiguous and provides no guidance for selecting this tool among several ref-related siblings, creating clear gaps.

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 description does not explain either parameter. 'from an .esp/.esm file' indirectly identifies plugin_name as the target plugin, but game_dir remains completely unexplained, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names and defaults.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('placed REFR/ACHR/ACRE records'), and a clear scope ('.esp/.esm file'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geck_esp_nearby_refs or geck_cell_find_refs, which operate on different data sources.

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?

The '.esp/.esm file' qualifier implies a file-based use case, so an agent can infer this reads references directly from a plugin file. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as geck_esp_nearby_refs or geck_cell_find_refs.

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