Renforge Info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it discloses the fallback chain (dashboard selection -> serve default -> auto-detected Ren'Py project), that project_source reports which match occurred, and that a null active_project means only that auto-discovery failed. It does not cover failure modes or error reporting, but for a no-arg read-only info probe this is well above the norm.

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?

Front-loads the imperative 'Call first' before any explanation, then spends its remaining sentences entirely on non-obvious semantics (fallback order, project_source, null meaning). No sentence is filler.

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-value documentation is not required, yet the description still interprets the two most ambiguous output concepts (active_project nullability and project_source). Combined with the routing advice, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly as a first step.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of project_path is about sibling tools rather than this tool's own inputs, but it usefully clarifies why a null result is not a dead end.

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 RenForge version and the active project') and opens with 'Call first', which cleanly separates it from the dozens of sibling tools. An agent can identify this as the entry-point/status tool without reading any schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to use it ('Call first'), and goes further by explaining what to do when the result is empty — ask the user for the game's path and continue, since every tool accepts project_path. That is genuine when/how-to-proceed guidance, not just context.

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