renforge_game_state

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only states a read-like operation without disclosing potential side effects, data size implications (especially with audio), or any performance/rate considerations. The vagueness of 'complete live state' leaves behavioral traits opaque.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and hints at an optional parameter. It has no wasted words, though it could include more essential details without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has an output schema, which can cover return values, but the description lacks guidance on how to choose between this and the compact variant, and what values 'include' accepts. For a tool with a simple two-parameter schema, the description is adequate but leaves significant contextual gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage in the description, it must compensate for the undocumented parameters. The mention of optionally including 'compact metrics or audio' hints at the 'include' parameter but does not name it or explain its structure (array of strings). The required 'project_path' is not mentioned at all, leaving the parameter meanings largely unclear.

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 clearly states the tool returns the complete live state, which is a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling renforge_game_state_compact by emphasizing 'complete' and mentioning optional compact metrics or audio, making the scope evident.

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 for full state access via 'complete live state' and hints at the compact alternative indirectly, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus renforge_game_state_compact or other siblings. No clear exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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