renforge_autopilotAutomatically play Ren'Py games across all branches to report label coverage and crashes.
Auto-play the game across all branches; report label coverage and crashes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_runs | No | ||
| max_steps | No | ||
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a long-running, automatic playthrough but says nothing about runtime expectations, what happens to the game state afterward, whether it requires an already-launched game, or how failures are surfaced. 'Crashes' is mentioned but not defined.
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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though the terse phrasing sacrifices clarity for 'label coverage' and 'crashes'.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly needed. But for a complex multi-branch autopilot with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps around run limits, preconditions, and runtime behavior.
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 mentions no parameters at all. max_runs (default 16) and max_steps (default 60) are the core knobs for an autopilot run and remain undocumented in both schema text and description, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.
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?
States a specific action ('auto-play the game across all branches') and deliverables ('report label coverage and crashes'), which distinguishes it from low-level siblings like renforge_advance or renforge_run_scenario. However, 'label coverage' is jargon that isn't further defined, leaving some ambiguity about the exact output.
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?
No guidance on when to use this batched autopilot versus alternatives like renforge_run_scenario, renforge_launch, or renforge_new_game. The description names no prerequisites, no comparison to siblings, and no conditions for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.