renforge_hit_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of returning a stack of focusable layers and the intended use of detecting overlay interception. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only or describe side effects, but 'Inspect' implies a non-mutating operation.

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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs with front-loaded intent. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and returned data. No wasted words.

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 existence and moderate complexity, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, return behavior, and motivating use case. Minor gaps remain around coordinate spaces, but these are partially captured in the schema.

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 parameter meanings. It mentions 'at a coordinate' but never clarifies x/y units, coordinate_space semantics, or the role of project_path. This leaves the four parameters under-documented.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect the interactive focus stack at a coordinate.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'click_at' by emphasizing returning layered focus information for overlay detection.

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 by explaining that the tool returns topmost and underneath controls for detecting transparent overlays that intercept clicks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the use case is clear enough to guide an agent.

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