tool_run_renpy

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does a fair amount: it discloses that commands run through the SDK's bundled Python, that translate 'creates block-translation skeletons' (a write side effect), the timeout default and its env-var override, and the return keys {ok, returncode, raw_output, errors}. It stops short of warning that arbitrary subcommands can mutate project files irreversibly, which matters for an open-ended executor.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then scoping context, then worked examples, then Args/Returns. Structure is clean and every section is useful, though the compile/lint examples restate the escape-hatch framing already given in the first two sentences, adding mild redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's explicit listing of return keys is necessary and present. All four params are covered and usage is disambiguated. The gap is the absence of any note about side effects, error semantics, or safety for an arbitrary-command executor with no annotations.

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, and it documents all four parameters: project_path (absolute project root), command (CLI subcommand), args (extra arguments with a concrete example), and timeout (override, default from RENPY_MCP_TIMEOUT or 180). This is richer than the bare schema titles.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Run an arbitrary Ren'Py CLI subcommand') and immediately frames the scope as a 'generic escape hatch' for subcommands 'without a dedicated wrapper.' It explicitly contrasts itself with tool_compile_project and tool_lint_project, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: subcommands lacking a dedicated wrapper (translate, rtc, add), and the specific edge case of running compile/lint with a custom timeout when the dedicated tools time out. Alternatives are named and the selecting condition is stated.

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