Check .riv runtime compatibility

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the mechanism ('inspect the file with bundled official WASM') and the outcome taxonomy (unsupported / conditional / unverified), but it never states that the operation is read-only, whether it fails or succeeds on mismatches, or how 'documented minimums' are determined.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the WASM implementation note trailing. Slightly dense phrasing ('report unsupported, conditional, or unverified support') but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description needs to convey what comes back; it lists the three support classifications but does not describe the report shape, whether results are per-target/per-feature, or whether an incompatible file yields an error versus a report. Adequate but leaves real gaps for a 4-parameter tool with nested objects.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild value by framing targets/versions as optional comparisons against documented minimums, and the 'unverified' category relates to the strict flag, but it does not directly explain what each parameter changes.

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 names specific verbs and resource: detect .riv features, compare against documented minimum runtime versions, and report support status. This is clearly a compatibility preflight, not a generic inspection. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from close siblings like riv_lint or riv_inspect, which keeps it at 4.

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 'preflight' framing and 'optional target runtime versions' imply usage before targeting a runtime, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no named alternative (e.g., riv_lint for general correctness checks). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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