renforge_scan_projectScan Ren'Py project scripts to summarize their structure; opt in to sections or pagination for focused details.
Scan scripts; defaults to summary-only, with opt-in sections and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| symbol | No | ||
| sections | No | ||
| file_glob | No | ||
| 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. It does disclose default behavior (summary-only), opt-in sections, and pagination, which is useful, but it omits safety/read-only status, permission requirements, and side effects.
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. It is perhaps too terse for the tool's complexity, but the sentence itself is efficiently structured and every word carries information.
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 6-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions and no annotations, the description is far too thin. Even with an output schema handling return values, the absence of usage and parameter guidance leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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 there are 6 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It only indirectly alludes to 'sections' and pagination-related parameters while leaving project_path, symbol, and file_glob completely 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?
States a verb ('Scan') and resource ('scripts'), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like renforge_inspect_project or renforge_parse_lint, and 'scripts' is vague without mentioning the required project context.
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, no alternatives, and no exclusions are given. The default summary-only behavior is a trait, not an instruction for selecting this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.