list_runtimes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says the tool lists runtimes with details/status/links, but does not mention side effects (though likely none), authentication needs, or output format specifics. This is sufficient for a simple read operation but lacks additional context such as sorting or pagination.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No wasted words, and the second sentence reinforces the tool's value without 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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's main purpose and result content. The rich parameter schema fills in filter details. It could be improved by noting that results can be filtered or that includeDetails defaults to true, but overall it is complete for a straightforward list 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% coverage of parameters with detailed descriptions for each (status, platform, includeDetails). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so it does not exceed the baseline expected when the schema is comprehensive.

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 begins with a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('available Rive runtime platforms'), and specifies what is returned ('details, status, and links'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that focus on docs, guides, or features.

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 states the tool is 'Essential for discovering which runtimes are available and their current support status,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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