Interactively drive a state machine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the workflow and return type, but it does not clarify side effects of capturing frames (e.g., whether PNGs are written to disk or returned) or error/prerequisite 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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key operations without any 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 description gives a solid overview of the tool and its output, but with no output schema or annotations it leaves gaps: what exactly a 'transition report' contains, how captured frames are delivered, and what the optional rendering parameters (width, artboard, background) do. These would require further inference.

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 path, steps, and stateMachine, and the description adds high-level semantic context like 'advance time' and 'capture frames' that maps to step fields. However, width, artboard, and background are undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for those.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('.riv state machine'), and enumerates concrete operations: set/fire inputs, advance time, observe state transitions, and capture frames. This distinguishes it from sibling render/inspect tools.

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 an interactive, step-by-step debugging/validation use case and mentions the output ('transition report'), which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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