renforge_game_state_compact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the full store is never returned unless explicitly requested, which is a key behavioral safeguard. It also indicates the output is bounded by default, providing useful context on payload limits.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and the second provides the critical default behavior.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values are documented. The description covers the essential behavior and differentiator, but with 7 params and no parameter descriptions, more guidance on the bounding parameters would improve completeness. Still, the core function is well-covered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It adds clarity for state_profile by explaining default behavior, and 'selected variables' hints at variable_names. However, parameters like max_depth, max_items, variable_prefix, and max_output_bytes are not explained, leaving gaps.

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?

Specific verb 'Return' plus resource 'bounded live state' clearly describes the tool's function. The mention of default state_profile='interaction' and the full store never being returned distinguishes it from sibling 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 states that the default profile is 'interaction', meaning bounded output, and that the full store is only returned when state_profile='full' is requested. This gives implicit guidance on when to use this tool versus a full-state tool, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions.

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