renforge_list_choicesList on-screen menu choices from a running Ren'Py game, returning each option's text and index so agents can inspect or select dialogue paths.
List the on-screen menu choices (text + index).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never states that a game session must be running or that choices may be empty/absent, and gives no sense of ordering, stability, or whether the index is stable across frames.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is arguably too terse given the omissions elsewhere, but it wastes nothing.
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 need not be explained, and the description correctly summarizes the payload as text + index. However, preconditions (running game, project context) and the relationship to renforge_select_choice are missing for what appears to be a stateful UI-inspection tool.
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 the single required parameter project_path is undocumented in both schema and description. With one undocumented parameter, the description should have said what project_path refers to and whether it must point at an existing project.
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 clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('on-screen menu choices'), plus the return shape ('text + index'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from renforge_list_ui_elements by scoping to menu choices, but never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as renforge_select_choice, which is the obvious companion tool for acting on the listed choices. The agent must infer that this is a prerequisite step before selecting a choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.