geck_esp_patch_ref_to_status_bar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool never writes while GECK is open and that it returns applied=false, giving the agent a concrete behavioral contract. It does not, however, explain whether any state is captured externally or whether the tool has side effects on planning data.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the most important usage qualifier ('Legacy planning only') and packs key behavioral facts (no writes, returns applied=false) into minimal space. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has five parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions. The one-line description leaves the agent without enough context to select and populate parameters correctly or to understand what 'deferred patch arguments' means in practice. It is too sparse for a tool of this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention ref_form_id, plugin_name, backup, backend, or game_dir at all. The tool name and 'capture deferred patch arguments' hint at ref_form_id, but no actual parameter semantics are provided.

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 the specific verb 'capture' with a clear resource ('deferred patch arguments') and states the tool's intentional no-write behavior. It identifies itself as 'Legacy planning only' and mentions the return value, which helps distinguish it from actual patch-application tools. However, it does not explicitly reference status-bar functionality or differentiate itself from the closely named sibling geck_esp_patch_ref_to_status_bar_offset.

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 phrase 'Legacy planning only' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: planning and capturing deferred arguments rather than executing a live patch. 'Never writes while GECK is open' implies a strong when-not-to-use condition but does not name alternative tools or explicitly state what to use instead.

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