renforge_get_displayable_boundsRetrieves the logical coordinates and rendered position of a shown image tag in a Ren'Py project, enabling agents to locate displayables for layout or inspection tasks.
Report where a shown image tag was rendered, in logical coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | ||
| layer | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that output is in logical coordinates and that the image tag must be shown, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, error behavior, or whether coordinates are viewport-relative.
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 wasted words. It states the action, target, precondition, and coordinate system efficiently.
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. However, for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description omits parameter meaning, usage alternatives, and behavioral context, leaving significant 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters, but it only loosely implies the 'tag' parameter. It gives no meaning for project_path or layer, nor does it clarify tag format or layer usage.
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 and resource: 'Report where a shown image tag was rendered, in logical coordinates.' It distinguishes itself from sibling bounds tools like renforge_get_ui_element_bounds by scoping to image tags and logical coordinates, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 phrase 'shown image tag was rendered' implies the tag must currently be displayed, giving some contextual usage guidance. However, it does not state when to use this over renforge_get_ui_element_bounds, renforge_find_image_on_screen, or other bounds-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.