CSL-Core

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining the exhaustive state-space exploration, timeout behavior, and mock fallback option. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers core behavioral aspects adequately for a verification 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 efficiently structured with purpose first, returns listed clearly, usage guidelines separated, and parameters explained. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 (formal verification with multiple parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides comprehensive coverage: purpose, differentiation, behavioral context, parameter explanations, and usage guidance. It's complete enough for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: csl_content ('complete CSL policy source code'), timeout ('TLC subprocess timeout in seconds'), and use_mock ('use Python BFS fallback instead of real TLC'). It adds meaningful context beyond basic schema information.

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 specific action ('Run TLA+ formal verification'), the resource ('CSL policy'), and the method ('real TLC model checking'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with verify_policy for Z3 checks, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need exhaustive temporal verification') versus alternatives ('Use verify_policy for quick Z3 consistency checks'). This gives clear context for tool selection among siblings.

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