Inspect a .riv file

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the transparency burden. It openly discloses that it uses the official Rive runtime for metadata and direct binary parsing for data binding, and notes that the `dataBinding` field is omitted when absent. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'inspect' claim.

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 dense but all information is relevant and no words are wasted. It efficiently packs a lot of detail into two sentences, though the second sentence is long and could be split for easier reading.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of return contents, listing all major categories and clarifying that data binding is included only when present. It could benefit from mentioning error behavior or file-format limitations, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an inspection 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 schema already fully documents the single `path` parameter (100% coverage). The description adds no new semantic meaning for the parameter beyond restating that it is a .riv file, 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 full metadata from .riv files, listing specific content types (artboards, animations, state machines, data binding). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like riv_list or riv_dump by detailing its comprehensive inspection scope.

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 the tool is for inspection and full metadata extraction, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It gives context about what it covers (including data binding) but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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