Renforge Control

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses that actions emit correlated business events and that wait_for_effect blocks until the event appears, which is useful. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or timeout behavior for destructive actions like quit or rollback, leaving significant gaps.

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 front-loaded with the action list and then adds two tightly focused sentences about event emission and wait_for_effect. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

Given five parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description should do more to explain required project_path and optional effect_timeout/interaction_id. It covers the most important action parameter and wait_for_effect, and output schema covers return values, but the definition remains incomplete for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates the action parameter's twelve allowed values and explains wait_for_effect, but leaves project_path, effect_timeout, and interaction_id entirely undocumented, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('runtime action'), then enumerates the twelve valid actions, making the tool's scope immediately clear. However, it does not differentiate this generic control tool from overlapping siblings like renforge_advance or renforge_stop, so the agent must infer when this tool is preferred.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling tools. The only usage hint is 'Set wait_for_effect=true to block until the matching event appears,' which is parameter-level rather than tool-selection guidance.

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