Riddle MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about what the tool does ('wait for completion', 'return all artifacts', 'Includes console logs and network HAR') and its scope ('Full sync automation'), but it doesn't cover important behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations and complex automation, this 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second lists included artifacts, and the third emphasizes the automation scope—all without waste. It's efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (automation with 5 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the high-level purpose and scope but lacks details on return values, error cases, or performance implications. For a tool without structured output information, more guidance on what 'artifacts' entail would be beneficial.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the input schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or providing additional usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Run a Playwright script, wait for completion, and return all artifacts') and resources ('Playwright script', 'artifacts', 'console logs', 'network HAR'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'Full sync automation - one call does everything', contrasting with tools like riddle_batch_screenshot or riddle_click_and_screenshot that likely perform more limited operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Full sync automation - one call does everything'), implying it's for comprehensive automation tasks rather than simpler operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as riddle_run_cript or riddle_screenshot, which might be better for lighter tasks.

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