assert-premise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool adds a formula to a KB, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., invalid formulas), side effects, or response format. The example shows expected inputs but lacks output details. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear 'When to use' section and a concise example. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, with no redundant or verbose text. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a mutation tool. It covers the purpose and usage context well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or response format. For a tool that modifies session state, more transparency would be beneficial, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'session_id' and 'formula' in the example but doesn't provide additional semantics or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Add a formula') and target resource ('to a session's knowledge base'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list-premises' (reads) and 'retract-premise' (removes). The verb 'Add' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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 explicitly includes a 'When to use' section that states 'Building up premises incrementally in a session,' providing clear context for when this tool should be used. This directly addresses the intended scenario without being misleading.

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