renforge_jumpRestart a running Ren'Py game at a given label or file:line, then poll launch status if it is still starting. Useful for testing specific scenes or code points.
Restart at a label or file:line; poll launch status when still starting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| version | No | stable | |
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation restarts execution and may still be starting, requiring polling of launch status. However, it omits side effects, state implications, permissions, and version behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with a semicolon separating the action from the polling guidance. It is concise and wastes no words, though it is arguably too terse for the tool's parameter complexity.
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 mutation-like tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain project_path requirements, version semantics, target syntax, or what restarting entails, even though an output schema exists.
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% for three parameters. The description only implies the meaning of 'target' via 'label or file:line'; it says nothing about 'project_path' or the 'version' parameter, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.
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 gives a specific verb and target: 'Restart at a label or file:line'. This distinguishes the action from generic restart or launch siblings, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer.
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?
It only advises 'poll launch status when still starting', which is a follow-up condition rather than guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like renforge_launch, renforge_advance, or renforge_launch_status. No when-not or alternative selection is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.