Renforge Game State Compact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key default (state_profile='interaction') and the safety property that the full store is not returned by default, which is useful. However it omits any mention of permissions, what happens on an invalid project_path, or boundedness behavior beyond the default profile.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the default behavior is front-loaded in the second sentence. Nothing wasteful, though it is brief enough that it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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-shape explanation is correctly omitted. But a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations is only partially covered by the description, leaving several bounding and selection parameters undocumented.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains state_profile (with default and 'full' option) and touches on variable selection; max_depth, max_items, max_output_bytes, variable_prefix, and project_path get no semantic coverage anywhere.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Return bounded live state') and immediately scopes it against the fuller alternative by noting the full store is never returned unless requested. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling renforge_game_state, though it never names it explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you want a bounded view rather than the full store, and set state_profile='full' when you need everything. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative tool, so the agent must infer the routing against renforge_game_state.

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