Riven Research

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully convey behavior. It discloses that the tool creates, runs, polls, times out, and returns a summary. However, it omits side effects (e.g., whether tasks persist), auth requirements, and error handling details.

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?

Two concise sentences: first sentence efficiently lists the full workflow, second sentence provides usage guidance. No redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return as a 'summary of the resulting thread.' It covers the core workflow and usage context. Minor gap: does not specify what the thread contains or error behavior, but sufficient for a research tool with sibling alternatives.

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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the polling and timeout logic, contextualizing 'timeout_seconds', and clarifying the return format ('summary of the resulting thread'), which enriches the schema alone.

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 creates a Riven Computer research task, runs it, polls, and returns a summary. It specifies the output type (summary of resulting thread). Differentiates from siblings (riven_chat, riven_council, riven_usage) by targeting open-ended multi-step research.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use for open-ended research questions that benefit from multi-step agentic work.' Provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude scenarios (e.g., simple Q&A) or name alternatives.

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