check_sat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions auto-declaration of variables but omits return format (sat/unsat/unknown), side effects, and required permissions. The timeout parameter default is in schema, not description.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a bullet list for examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite having 3 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return value of the tool or what 'checking' entails beyond constraints. The examples help but do not cover failure modes or expected output for unsatisfiability.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining constraints as Z3 expressions and that variables auto-declare based on usage, which goes beyond the schema's type descriptions. Examples further clarify usage.

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 'Check satisfiability of a list of constraints' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'prove' and 'solve' by being a direct check, and from session tools by being standalone.

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 one-off constraint checking with auto-declared variables, but does not explicitly state when to use vs session-based siblings or provide exclusions. The example constraints give practical guidance.

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