renforge_send_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the exclusivity of input modes, the character-by-character posting for text, and the optional submit behavior for pressing Enter. It also notes the requirement of a focused Ren'Py Input, but it does not address potential errors, consequences of sending invalid input, or the output format.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the main rule, then breaks down each mode in clear, separate lines. It uses formatting for readability and avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

The description covers the core functionality well but omits the required 'project_path' parameter, which might leave an agent unsure how to supply it. It also lacks details about error handling or return behavior, though an output schema exists to cover return values. Overall, it is sufficient for the simple act of sending input but misses a few contextual pieces.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema by specifying the allowed formats for 'key' (readable names), 'scroll' (object with x, y, direction, and optional amount), and the interaction of 'submit' with 'text'. The only parameter not mentioned is 'project_path', but it is likely a standard context path required by many sibling tools.

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 clearly states that the tool sends exactly one input mode (text, named key, or scroll) to a Ren'Py input, which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates the modes, making the purpose clear, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools.

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 explains the use cases for each input mode (e.g., text posts TEXTINPUT events, key accepts readable names), which implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, making the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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