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, but it only says 'Check' without detailing return format, potential errors, or whether the operation is read-only. It does not contradict any annotations (since there are none), but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious check action.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 straightforward check tool with complete parameter documentation and no output schema, the description adequately conveys its purpose and use case. It does not explain return values, but this is less critical given the tool's low complexity. The context signals and sibling names help complete the picture.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters 'feature' and 'runtime' already have descriptions providing examples and enum options. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameters, staying at the baseline level expected when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the tool checks Rive feature support across runtime platforms, using the specific verb 'Check' with a defined resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_runtimes or get_runtime_guide, which focus on runtime information rather than feature compatibility.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Useful for planning cross-platform implementations'), which implies its purpose in a planning workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is stated clearly enough to guide selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'shows' content, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential behavior such as error handling, network dependencies, or any side effects. It adds minimal context beyond the tool's name and schema.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple documentation lookup tool, the description adequately conveys what it returns (classes, methods, properties, examples). It doesn't explain the overall structure or how to use the parameters together, but given the low complexity and rich schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema descriptions cover all three parameters (runtime, className, includeExamples) with clear details and examples. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100%.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('API reference documentation for a specific Rive runtime'), and lists what it shows. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_runtime_guide or search_rive_docs by focusing on API reference, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied usage is 'when you need API reference', but that's not articulated clearly enough to be considered helpful guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that the tool retrieves detailed content and warns that search_rive_docs comes first, adding workflow context. But it does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, response format, or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies. The description is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives usage guidance and expected output. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple content-retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the use case and what type of content to expect, though it does not explicitly describe the response structure. Still, the tool is simple enough that the description suffices.

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 100% with clear explanations for every parameter (url format/example, maxLength default, includeCode/includeLinks defaults). The description text adds no extra parameter semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get detailed content from a specific Rive documentation page' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling search_rive_docs by stating it provides 'complete implementation details, code examples, and step-by-step guides'.

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?

It provides clear context: 'Use this after search_rive_docs'. This tells the agent the typical workflow and when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives like get_runtime_guide or get_api_reference, so it falls short of explicit when-not/alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description outlines the content (setup instructions, code examples, best practices), but it does not disclose behavior such as response format, size, or any side effects. It adds some context but not rich detail.

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 two clear sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and adds a meaningful detail about content. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

Given the simple getter nature, the description covers the core purpose and content, and the schema handles parameter details. However, it lacks context about return format or how sections work, and without annotations, it leaves some ambiguity compared to a more complete description.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing all three parameters with examples and defaults. The description adds only a general context ('specific Rive runtime') and does not elaborate on parameter specifics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('comprehensive implementation guide for a specific Rive runtime'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_rive_docs or get_api_reference by focusing on the implementation guide aspect.

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 implies usage when an implementation guide for a runtime is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_tutorials or get_api_reference, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool finds and accesses tutorials and mentions filtering dimensions, but does not disclose return format, whether full content is returned, default limits, or potential side effects. This adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a concrete use case. No filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool has a simple purpose with four documented optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core use case and the filtering options. It lacks explicit exclusions or clarification about return values, but it is reasonably complete for a straightforward tutorial search/access tool.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the same filter dimensions (topic, difficulty, runtime) but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as value formatting or interplay between filters.

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 states a specific verb ('Find and access'), a specific resource ('Rive tutorials'), and the filtering dimensions ('by topic, difficulty, or runtime'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_rive_docs or get_rive_doc_content, which focus on general docs or content retrieval.

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 phrase 'Great for learning specific features or implementation patterns' provides an implicit use context. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, the description makes it clear this is the tool for tutorials, which is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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

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

The description implies a read-only browsing behavior ('Shows tools...') and lists some content categories, providing a basic sense of what to expect. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose potential limitations, output format, or whether the data is static or dynamic, though for a listing tool this is a moderate gap.

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, tightly written sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 tool is relatively simple with no output schema, and the description conveys the core purpose. However, it omits mention of the full filterable category set (state-machines, timeline, bones, interface) and the includeDetails parameter, leaving some richness to be inferred from the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. It mentions categories (tools, constraints, animation) which loosely align with the schema enum but does not enrich the parameter descriptions beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and identifies the resource ('Rive editor features and capabilities'), listing example content areas. It distinguishes the tool from sibling documentation and runtime tools, though it could more explicitly differentiate from search_rive_docs.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_rive_docs or get_runtime_guide. The description simply states what it shows without contextual direction or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says the tool lists runtimes with details/status/links, but does not mention side effects (though likely none), authentication needs, or output format specifics. This is sufficient for a simple read operation but lacks additional context such as sorting or pagination.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No wasted words, and the second sentence reinforces the tool's value without 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's main purpose and result content. The rich parameter schema fills in filter details. It could be improved by noting that results can be filtered or that includeDetails defaults to true, but overall it is complete for a straightforward list tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage of parameters with detailed descriptions for each (status, platform, includeDetails). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so it does not exceed the baseline expected when the schema is comprehensive.

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 begins with a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('available Rive runtime platforms'), and specifies what is returned ('details, status, and links'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that focus on docs, guides, or features.

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 states the tool is 'Essential for discovering which runtimes are available and their current support status,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify return format, result structure, pagination behavior, or whether snippets are included. The description only states the purpose, leaving the agent to infer behavioral traits of a search tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the search domain, use case, and query examples. However, it does not explain what the results look like (e.g., list of doc titles, snippets) or how to optimally use the runtime/category filters. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 100%, and the schema already documents all parameters with detailed examples. The description adds a general suggestion to use specific terms, but this is largely redundant with the schema's query examples. It meets the baseline but adds minimal new value.

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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Rive documentation', specifying the scope with examples like animations, runtimes, editor features, and guides. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., get_rive_doc_content, list_runtimes) by focusing on discovery via search rather than retrieval or listing.

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?

Provides explicit context on when to use: 'Best for finding specific features, implementation details, or troubleshooting.' It also gives concrete query term suggestions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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