prove

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses basic behavior (attempts proof, uses specified prover, installation requirements) but omits critical details like return value (proof object or success/failure), timeout behavior, and side effects on sessions.

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 wasted words, efficiently conveying the core purpose and key detail about prover types.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (proof, success/failure, errors). It also does not clarify if the tool operates within a session context, leaving a significant gap given the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value for the 'prover' parameter by noting 'simple' is built-in and others require installation, which goes beyond the schema enum descriptions.

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 verb ('prove'), resource ('FOL proof'), and specifies the provers available, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'prove_session' and '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?

The description implies usage for proving a conclusion from premises but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prove_session' or when not to use it. It mentions installation requirements for some provers, offering minimal guidance.

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