Renforge Get Var

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a non-mutating read and hints that the game must be running, but does not explicitly state that it is safe, what happens if the variable is missing, or any error or authorization behavior.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, which is structurally clean. However, it is arguably too sparse given the two undocumented parameters and lack of annotations.

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 explained. But with 0% parameter description coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it omits parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details needed to call the tool accurately.

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 compensate. It implies the 'name' parameter is a variable name, but gives no format or examples, and completely ignores the 'project_path' parameter. Minimal value is added beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('variable') with a clear scope ('running game's store'), making the tool's core function immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like renforge_set_var through the verb, though it doesn't 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as renforge_game_state, renforge_eval, or renforge_set_var. The context is implied by the verb 'Read', but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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