Extract embedded assets from a .riv file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral details: file extension inference from magic bytes (PNG/JPEG/WEBP/TTF/OTF/WOFF/WOFF2/GIF) and the skipping of externally-referenced assets. This goes beyond a simple action statement, though it omits overwrite 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 a single, information-dense sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every clause adds value: asset types, destination, magic-byte inference, and the exclusion of external references. 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?

For a two-parameter extraction tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what is extracted, how files are named, and what is skipped. It could mention folder creation or overwrite behavior, but that is not critical for tool selection or invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'path' and 'outDir' well-described. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 extracts embedded image/font/audio asset binaries from a .riv file to disk. It specifies exact asset types (ImageAsset/FontAsset/AudioAsset + FileAssetContents pairs) and the magic-byte inference, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like riv_asset_search or riv_inspect.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (extracting raw embedded asset binaries to disk) and gives context that externally-referenced assets are skipped. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, 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.