list_editor_features

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

The description implies a read-only browsing behavior ('Shows tools...') and lists some content categories, providing a basic sense of what to expect. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose potential limitations, output format, or whether the data is static or dynamic, though for a listing tool this is a moderate gap.

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, tightly written sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 is relatively simple with no output schema, and the description conveys the core purpose. However, it omits mention of the full filterable category set (state-machines, timeline, bones, interface) and the includeDetails parameter, leaving some richness to be inferred from the schema.

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 description adds no additional parameter meaning. It mentions categories (tools, constraints, animation) which loosely align with the schema enum but does not enrich the parameter descriptions beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline 3.

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 ('Browse') and identifies the resource ('Rive editor features and capabilities'), listing example content areas. It distinguishes the tool from sibling documentation and runtime tools, though it could more explicitly differentiate from search_rive_docs.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_rive_docs or get_runtime_guide. The description simply states what it shows without contextual direction or exclusions.

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