prove_session

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

No annotations exist, and the description only states 'Execute a proof'—no disclosure of side effects, performance, or what happens internally (e.g., output location). This is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 succinct sentence. It is appropriately sized, though slightly terse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools like 'prove', the description lacks information on return values, error cases, or how to interpret results. It feels incomplete for a non-trivial tool.

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 the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, thus baseline score of 3.

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 'Execute a proof' and the resource 'current session's premises and conclusion.' It distinguishes from sibling 'prove' by implying session context, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

Implies that a session with premises and conclusion must be set up beforehand, but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives like 'prove' for ad-hoc proofs.

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