renforge_autopilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool auto-plays and reports coverage/crashes, but it doesn't disclose side effects on game state, whether it requires a running game or restarts it, or how long it might take. It also doesn't mention whether it modifies save files or has destructive consequences.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loading the core action. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and outputs; there is no fluff.

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?

For a complex tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how max_runs/max_steps influence behavior, what constitutes 'label coverage,' or what 'crashes' means in this context. While the output schema may cover return values, the tool's operational context and parameter semantics are missing.

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 needed to explain the parameters, but it doesn't mention max_runs, max_steps, or project_path at all. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but there's no info on defaults, constraints, or how they affect the auto-play process.

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 ('auto-play') and identifies the resource ('the game') and the scope ('across all branches'), clearly distinguishing it from more targeted tools like renforge_run_scenario or renforge_advance. It also specifies the outputs (label coverage, crashes).

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 description clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you want comprehensive playthrough coverage of all branches. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the 'across all branches' phrase implies it's for exhaustive exploration rather than targeted testing.

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