reason

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions that it returns proof trees but does not indicate side effects, performance costs, or whether it modifies the knowledge base. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about potential impacts.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the main action and result format. However, its brevity veers toward under-specification for a complex tool, though this is more a completeness concern than conciseness.

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 has six parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not mention what inputs are required, how the reasoning process works, or any constraints. Even though an output schema exists, the description leaves the tool's usage and behavior largely unexplained.

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 has zero description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters (kb_id, query, knowledge, max_depth, max_solutions, delta_knowledge). Without any parameter explanation, the agent cannot understand how to construct a valid call, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details.

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's function: performing logical deduction on a knowledge base and returning solutions with proof trees. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like explain, diagnose, and what_if, which likely cover other analytical tasks.

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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not mention how this differs from diagnose or what_if in terms of use cases, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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