Diff two .riv files

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. It explains the type of output (type counts and property differences) but omits any indication of whether the tool is read-only, how results are formatted, or the effect of the maxDiffs parameter. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately captures the tool's purpose. It is concise and contains no filler, with every word contributing to understanding.

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?

Despite being a simple diff tool, the description covers the core purpose but leaves out return format and parameter details. Given the presence of a maxDiffs parameter and no output schema, a bit more detail on invocation would improve completeness, but the basic intent is clear.

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 only includes a description for maxDiffs, leaving pathA and pathB as bare string fields. The tool description does not compensate by explaining these parameters or the optional maxDiffs, so the parameter semantics are largely 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?

The description clearly states this tool performs a structural diff between two .riv files, specifying that it reports type count changes and per-object property differences. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like riv_visual_diff, which would handle visual comparisons.

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 for structural comparison of .riv files but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as riv_visual_diff or riv_ab_compare. There is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so the usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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