renforge_find_referencesFind exact Ren'Py definitions and usages, including text interpolations, across project files to trace symbols and references.
Find exact Ren'Py definitions/usages, including text interpolations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| symbol | Yes | ||
| file_glob | No | ||
| 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?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not state that the operation is read-only, that results are paginated via limit/offset, or what happens when no match is found. 'Find' weakly implies a safe read, but no concrete behavioral trait is disclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 the tool has five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a scoping parameter (file_glob) that could dramatically change results. For a search tool with this surface area, the description is materially incomplete.
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?
Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. limit, offset, file_glob, and project_path are entirely undocumented, and even 'symbol' is only indirectly implied by the phrase 'definitions/usages'. The description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?
States a specific verb (find) and resource (Ren'Py definitions/usages), with the qualifier 'exact' implying precision-oriented search and 'text interpolations' narrowing the search scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from lookup-oriented siblings like renforge_search_docs or renforge_inspect_project, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The word 'exact' hints at contrast with a fuzzy search, but the agent is left to infer when this tool beats renforge_search_docs or renforge_inspect_project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.