Renforge Send Input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that text posts character-by-character TEXTINPUT events to a focused Ren'Py Input, submit optionally presses Enter, key accepts readable key names, and scroll uses logical game coordinates. It does not cover failure modes, what happens when no Input is focused, side effects, permissions, or error 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 front-loaded and mostly efficient, with detailed mode semantics packed into a short space. It has a minor redundancy: the first sentence and last sentence both state that exactly one input mode must be supplied.

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?

Given 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description gives solid input-mode detail but remains incomplete. It leaves the required project_path unexplained and does not address behavioral preconditions or failure behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains text, key, scroll, and submit semantics in useful detail, but omits the required project_path parameter entirely and does not fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific verb and resource: sending exactly one input mode (text, key, or scroll). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as renforge_control, renforge_click_element, or renforge_advance, which also relate to game input/interaction.

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?

Explains the mode constraint that exactly one of text, key, or scroll must be supplied, and describes what each mode does. However, it provides no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no routing to sibling tools for other input scenarios.

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