convert_to_tptp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It does not disclose side effects, output format, error conditions, or any constraints. The description is too brief to inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 concise, with one focused sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include output format without losing 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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the conversion produces (e.g., a string, file path). It only vaguely mentions 'TPTP format' and does not clarify if the output is a string representation. Missing details on valid input formats and error handling.

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 has 100% description coverage, already documenting premises and conclusion clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 converts a FOL problem to TPTP format, with a brief explanation of TPTP as standard for theorem provers. It gives a clear verb-resource pairing, but lacks explicit linkage to the input parameters (premises and conclusion) and does not fully distinguish from siblings like parse_formula.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., parse_formula, prove) is provided. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context or prerequisites.

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