get_tutorials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool finds and accesses tutorials and mentions filtering dimensions, but does not disclose return format, whether full content is returned, default limits, or potential side effects. This adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a concrete use case. No filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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 has a simple purpose with four documented optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core use case and the filtering options. It lacks explicit exclusions or clarification about return values, but it is reasonably complete for a straightforward tutorial search/access tool.

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% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the same filter dimensions (topic, difficulty, runtime) but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as value formatting or interplay between filters.

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 states a specific verb ('Find and access'), a specific resource ('Rive tutorials'), and the filtering dimensions ('by topic, difficulty, or runtime'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_rive_docs or get_rive_doc_content, which focus on general docs or content retrieval.

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 phrase 'Great for learning specific features or implementation patterns' provides an implicit use context. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, the description makes it clear this is the tool for tutorials, which is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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