renforge_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the fallback logic for active_project (dashboard → serve default → current directory detection) and clarifies that a null active_project only means auto-discovery found nothing, preventing misinterpretation. This goes beyond simple output listing.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences provide essential fallback and null-handling details. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: when to call it, how active_project is resolved, what null means, and how to proceed. It leaves no ambiguity for the agent, making it a complete and actionable tool definition.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it adds semantic value by interpreting the output fields active_project and project_source, which helps the agent act on the result.

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 opens with 'Call first: report RenForge version and the active project,' clearly stating the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as an initialization/info call, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call first,' establishing when to use the tool. It explains the fallback chain for active_project and directs the agent to ask for the game's path if null, providing concrete guidance on how to handle the null case. It also notes that every tool accepts project_path directly, aiding in subsequent tool usage.

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