search_rive_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify return format, result structure, pagination behavior, or whether snippets are included. The description only states the purpose, leaving the agent to infer behavioral traits of a search tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the search domain, use case, and query examples. However, it does not explain what the results look like (e.g., list of doc titles, snippets) or how to optimally use the runtime/category filters. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents all parameters with detailed examples. The description adds a general suggestion to use specific terms, but this is largely redundant with the schema's query examples. It meets the baseline but adds minimal new value.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Rive documentation', specifying the scope with examples like animations, runtimes, editor features, and guides. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., get_rive_doc_content, list_runtimes) by focusing on discovery via search rather than retrieval or listing.

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?

Provides explicit context on when to use: 'Best for finding specific features, implementation details, or troubleshooting.' It also gives concrete query term suggestions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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