List .riv files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: recursive traversal, target file type, and reported properties (size and format version). This is sufficient for a simple listing tool, though it does not mention output format or edge cases like permissions or symlinks.

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 concise sentence that covers purpose and output in a clear, front-loaded manner. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. The description explains what it reports (size and format version), which is sufficient for invocation. It lacks an explicit output format, but for a listing tool the description is largely 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 input schema already documents the 'dir' parameter with a clear description (Directory to search, absolute or relative). The tool description adds the 'recursive' aspect, which relates to behavior rather than parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 recursively finds .riv files under a directory and reports size and format version. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('.riv files'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like riv_inspect or riv_dump which operate on individual files.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to list .riv files in a directory tree with metadata. It implies a directory-wide search, distinguishing it from siblings that target single files. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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