Generate integration code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context: 'using its real artboard, state machine and input names' implies the tool reads the file and adapts to its contents. However, it omits side effects (e.g., does it write files or return code?) and possible limitations.

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, well-structured sentence that packs significant information (frameworks, source, behavior) without fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Generate' and each phrase adds value.

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 2-param tool, the description covers the core purpose, but it lacks details about the output format (returned code vs. file generation) and any prerequisites or error conditions. Since there is no output schema, the description should have clarified the return value to be fully 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 covers 50% of parameters (path has a description; framework has an enum but no description). The description partially compensates by listing the frameworks ('React/Vue/Svelte/plain JS/Flutter') which aligns with the enum, and implies 'path' refers to a .riv file. But it adds no deeper semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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's function: 'Generate ready-to-use integration code' for various frameworks. It explicitly mentions the source resource (.riv file) and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like riv_inspect or riv_play_state_machine by focusing on code generation, not inspection or playback.

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. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), or exclusions. The agent is left to infer from the tool name and sibling list, which is insufficient.

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