renforge_inspect_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'inspect' and mentions 'active screen' as a precondition, but it does not explain side effects, error behavior, or what happens if no screen is active.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, making it efficient. However, its brevity omits important context, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 tool's complexity (two undocumented parameters, many sibling tools), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'JSON-safe scope' means, how it differs from other inspect tools, or provide enough context for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of input parameter guidance.

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 input schema has two required parameters (name, project_path) with no descriptions; the description adds no parameter semantics. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should clarify what these parameters refer to, but it does not.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' with a clear resource ('an active screen's layer, JSON-safe scope, and arguments'), making the primary function clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling inspect tools, but the name and resource disambiguate it from 'inspect_image' and 'inspect_project'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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