renforge_eval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that evaluating arbitrary Python may have side effects, modify game state, or require the game to be running. It only states the basic operation.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the core purpose effectively.

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?

With no annotations and a side-effect-capable operation, the description lacks essential context about safety and prerequisites. The output schema may document return values, but the description does not mention potential mutation or the need for a running game.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It implies 'expr' is the expression to evaluate and 'project_path' identifies the project, but neither parameter is explicitly defined. This is insufficient for a 2-param tool with no other documentation.

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 'evaluate' and a clear resource (Python expression in the running game's store namespace), distinguishing it from variable-specific tools like renforge_set_var and renforge_get_var.

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 usage when an arbitrary expression needs evaluation, but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of renforge_get_var/set_var or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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