renforge_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds value by listing the three sources considered (dashboard, serve default, cwd), giving insight into its discovery process. However, it does not describe possible failure modes, return format (though an output schema exists), or whether any side effects occur.

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 that wastes no words. It begins with the core action and resource immediately, and the parenthetical source list adds essential detail without bloat.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and the inputs it checks. It is slightly thin on broader context such as when one might need this information, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is sufficiently complete. The lack of usage guidance is the main gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, making this a straightforward baseline score of 4.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Discover' followed by the resource 'active Ren'Py project' and enumerates the sources (dashboard, serve default, or cwd). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like inspect_project or scan_project, which focus on inspection/scanning rather than active-context discovery.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to know which project is active, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as renforge_inspect_project or renforge_info. No comparable alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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