check_feature_support

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Check' without detailing return format, potential errors, or whether the operation is read-only. It does not contradict any annotations (since there are none), but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious check action.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a straightforward check tool with complete parameter documentation and no output schema, the description adequately conveys its purpose and use case. It does not explain return values, but this is less critical given the tool's low complexity. The context signals and sibling names help complete the picture.

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 both parameters 'feature' and 'runtime' already have descriptions providing examples and enum options. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameters, staying at the baseline level expected when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 checks Rive feature support across runtime platforms, using the specific verb 'Check' with a defined resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_runtimes or get_runtime_guide, which focus on runtime information rather than feature compatibility.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Useful for planning cross-platform implementations'), which implies its purpose in a planning workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is stated clearly enough to guide selection.

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