Riddle MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the async behavior and job_id return mechanism, but lacks critical details like error handling, timeout behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'page object available' entails in the script context.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly convey core functionality and return value. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the primary action.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format beyond job_id, doesn't cover undocumented parameters, and lacks behavioral context needed for safe invocation.

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 50% (only 'url' and 'script' have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. It implies 'url' and 'script' are required via context, but doesn't explain 'width' and 'height' parameters at all, leaving them undocumented.

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 action ('Run a Playwright script') and target ('on a page'), and specifies it's asynchronous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'riddle_automate' or 'riddle_batch_screenshot' which might also involve script execution or automation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'riddle_automate' or 'riddle_batch_screenshot'. It mentions the async nature and job_id return, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for usage.

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