renforge_export_dialogueExport a Ren'Py game's dialogue to plain text by providing the project path and optional language, enabling AI agents to read or analyze script lines outside the engine.
Export the game's dialogue as plain text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | None | |
| 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 the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether export writes a file to disk or returns text, where output lands, whether it is read-only or has side effects, or what happens with a missing/invalid project path.
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 short sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. The brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification given the surrounding gaps.
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 not be described, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition is missing the essentials: what the language filter does and whether/how output is persisted. For a two-parameter export tool this is too thin.
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 and it does not: neither 'project_path' nor 'language' is mentioned. The 'language' parameter in particular (a filter over which dialogue is exported, defaulting to "None") is left entirely unexplained.
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 ('Export'), resource ('the game's dialogue'), and output form ('plain text'), which is enough for an agent to know it produces a text dump rather than running translations. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as renforge_generate_translations or renforge_estimate_translation.
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 when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and names no alternative tool. An agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right call versus the translation-oriented siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.