Run a Logisim test vector

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

The description discloses that the tool uses staged snapshots (non-destructive), requires a self-reporting JAR version, and specifies how assertion failures are represented in the return value. These details go beyond the annotations, which already state idempotence and non-destructiveness.

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 a long, winding sentence that starts with implementation details rather than the core action, followed by a short sentence about failures. It could be more front-loaded and concise, but it is not excessively verbose.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is somewhat complete but misses the overall purpose and does not describe success behavior or preconditions. With 7 parameters and no parameter semantics, it leaves a notable gap in context.

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 schema covers only 57% of parameter descriptions, leaving timeoutMs, maxFailures, and expectedVectorDigest undocumented. The description adds little beyond vague references to the project and vector file, failing to explain the purpose or constraints of these parameters.

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 indicates the tool runs a test vector against a Logisim project, referencing the project and .vec/.txt file. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on test vector execution, though it buries the main verb in implementation detail about the JAR.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like logisim_analyze_design or logisim_truth_table. Usage is only implied by the name and the mention of test vectors, with no mention of scenarios or exclusions.

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