get_runtime_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description outlines the content (setup instructions, code examples, best practices), but it does not disclose behavior such as response format, size, or any side effects. It adds some context but not rich detail.

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 two clear sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and adds a meaningful detail about content. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 the simple getter nature, the description covers the core purpose and content, and the schema handles parameter details. However, it lacks context about return format or how sections work, and without annotations, it leaves some ambiguity compared to a more complete description.

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 has 100% coverage, describing all three parameters with examples and defaults. The description adds only a general context ('specific Rive runtime') and does not elaborate on parameter specifics, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('comprehensive implementation guide for a specific Rive runtime'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_rive_docs or get_api_reference by focusing on the implementation guide aspect.

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 usage when an implementation guide for a runtime is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_tutorials or get_api_reference, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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