Renforge Inspect Screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a running game is required ('active screen') but doesn't state this as a precondition, nor whether the tool is read-only, what it does if no screen is active, or what 'JSON-safe' scoping entails.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally it is clean.

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 needn't be described, but with zero annotation coverage, 0% parameter documentation, and 49 sibling tools to disambiguate from, one terse sentence is not enough for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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% and both parameters (project_path, name) are undocumented anywhere. The description mentions 'screen' and 'layer', which loosely hints that 'name' identifies a screen, but it never explains the parameters, their format, or valid values.

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 verb (inspect) and a resource (an active screen's layer, scope, arguments), which is more than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like renforge_inspect_image or renforge_inspect_project beyond the word 'screen', and 'JSON-safe scope' is jargon that doesn't clarify what is actually returned.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many other inspect/state tools (inspect_project, scene_tree, game_state, list_ui_elements). The word 'active' hints at a prerequisite but the when/when-not is left entirely to inference.

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