renforge_new_game

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important asynchronous behavior (the need to poll launch status), but it omits other key traits such as whether it requires a running game, whether it resets all game state, and what it returns. The description adds some value but is far from complete.

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 that is action-first and free of fluff. Every word contributes meaning: it states the core action and a critical conditional behavior. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description remains too sparse for a mutation tool with no annotations. It does not explain when to use it, what happens to the current game session, whether it blocks, or how parameters affect the launch. The presence of sibling launcher/status tools makes the missing differentiation more problematic.

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 description does not mention project_path or version at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (project_path is likely the filesystem path), but the description provides no additional meaning, leaving the agent to guess about the version parameter and how it affects behavior.

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 phrase 'Start at the start label' clearly conveys the action of starting a new game from the beginning, and the sibling context (renforge_launch, renforge_jump) helps distinguish it. However, it does not explicitly state whether this resets the current game or launches a new process, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 gives a conditional usage hint ('poll launch status when still starting'), which implies a follow-up action using renforge_launch_status. But it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over renforge_launch or renforge_jump, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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