geck_read_load_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' explicitly signals a non-destructive operation, which is useful, but the description does not disclose behavior when game_dir is omitted, what happens if plugins.txt is missing, or whether any resolution/filtering is applied.

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. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, so return-value documentation is not necessary. However, the description lacks parameter semantics and any usage routing, leaving enough gaps that the definition is only minimally viable for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has one optional game_dir parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. An agent must infer that game_dir indicates the game installation directory and cannot know the meaning of the default null value.

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 ('Read') and resource ('Fallout 3 plugins.txt load order'), clearly identifying the artifact being accessed. It also differentiates itself from the sibling geck_write_load_order by implying a read-only counterpart.

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 like geck_list_plugins or geck_write_load_order. The read verb weakly implies a query context, but no explicit exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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