Dump .riv binary structure

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

The description discloses a critical non-obvious behavior: large files return a summary unless full=true. Since no annotations are provided, this is important context. It could additionally mention output format or errors, but for a read-only dump tool the disclosure is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and key behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or 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 parameter set and full schema coverage, the description provides the essential context: purpose, use case, and truncation behavior. It lacks explicit return format details, but as a low-level debugging tool this is a minor gap.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description only restates the 'full' parameter's behavior without adding new details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 action ('Dump') on a specific resource ('.riv file's object stream') and enumerates the content (typeKeys, property values, hierarchy). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like riv_inspect or riv_list by emphasizing its low-level binary focus.

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 'Useful for debugging and format research' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the stated use cases effectively guide selection.

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