Diagnose a .riv file for structural problems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the operation is a 'static diagnostic pass,' implying no file mutation, and lists the specific behavioral scopes it checks (unreachable states, easing discarded, motion-quality rules). This provides useful behavioral context, though it does not mention output format, exit codes, or permissions.

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 front-loaded with the core function and then uses a colon-led list to enumerate checks efficiently. The list is long but each item adds distinct value; the closing sentence about riv_dump is also purposeful. Slightly verbose, but earns its place.

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 a single parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete in explaining what the tool does and what it checks. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the return value format (e.g., a list of issues), which would be expected in the absence of an output schema.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter ('path' with description 'Path to the .riv file'). The description adds no additional detail about the parameter, so per the rubric the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Static diagnostic pass over a .riv file') and enumerates precise diagnostic categories (broken references, oversized assets, unreachable states, etc.). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling riv_dump by stating it 'complements' it and 'doesn't judge it,' making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 names riv_dump as a complementary tool and contrasts it by noting riv_dump shows raw structure but doesn't judge it, giving the agent a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use riv_lint or list other alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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