atelierb_prove

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It explains force levels but does not mention prerequisites, side effects, whether the operation modifies project state, or how results are returned. This leaves important behavioral aspects opaque for a tool that runs a prover.

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 efficient, using a single sentence to state the action and a short clause to list force levels. There is no fluff or redundant wording, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description needs to provide more contextual details. It omits critical behavioral information such as whether the proof process is read-only, what happens on success/failure, and any preconditions like typechecked components. This is insufficient for a complex proving 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 already provides 100% coverage of parameters, including descriptions for force, project_name, and component_name. The tool description restates the force level semantics but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a clear action 'Run automatic prover' on a specific resource 'B component', and the force levels add concrete operational detail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like typecheck and b0check, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for proving a B component but does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as atelierb_typecheck or atelierb_b0check. No exclusions or context are provided beyond the core action.

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