Renforge Eval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden for what is effectively arbitrary code execution. It mentions the store namespace, but says nothing about side effects, mutability, safety/security implications, or what happens on error — all critical for an eval tool.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the terseness is bought at the cost of the missing behavioral and parameter detail.

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 values need no explanation, but for a powerful code-eval tool with two required, undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition omits side-effect, safety, and project_path context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 schema adds no meaning and the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'expr' is a Python expression, but never explains 'project_path' at all, leaving half of the required parameters undocumented.

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 verb (Evaluate), resource (a Python expression), and scope (the running game's store namespace), so the agent knows this is arbitrary-expression evaluation rather than variable get/set. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like renforge_get_var/renforge_set_var or renforge_game_state.

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 only says what the tool does, with no guidance on when to reach for it versus alternatives such as renforge_get_var, renforge_set_var, or renforge_game_state. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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