renforge_jump

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: that the restart may be asynchronous and the agent should poll launch status if still starting. However, it does not mention side effects such as stopping the current game, whether the project must be running, or any potential destructive impact on game state, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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, tight sentence with a semicolon separating the core action from the follow-up guidance. Every word earns its place, there is no redundancy, and the most important information (restart at a label/file:line) is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool lacks parameter descriptions and annotations, and the description itself is too terse. It does not explain the required parameters, any prerequisites (e.g., game must be running), the meaning of 'version', or what happens to the current game state upon restart. Given the complexity and the 0% schema coverage, this is not adequate for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter descriptions. The phrase 'label or file:line' partially explains the 'target' parameter, but 'project_path' and 'version' remain completely unexplained. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the absence of schema-level documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Restart' and clearly identifies the resource ('a label or file:line'), making it obvious what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like renforge_launch or renforge_launch_status by noting it restarts at a specific point and may require polling launch status.

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 phrase 'Restart at a label or file:line' gives a clear use case for the tool. The second clause 'poll launch status when still starting' provides an actionable follow-up step, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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