solve_smt_lib2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden. It only says 'Solve the constraint problem' without revealing side effects, return value, or any restrictions. The behavior of the solver (e.g., whether it returns sat/unsat, a model, or has limits) is completely unspecified.

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 that wastes no words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it omits potentially useful details.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only one sentence, the description leaves out critical context such as what the solver returns, any side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that processes user-supplied problems, this missing information limits a complete understanding.

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 schema provides zero description coverage for the single parameter 'problem'. The description adds some meaning by referencing 'SMT-LIB2 format', but it does not explicitly define the parameter's type or expected syntax beyond that. This partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 action ('Solve') and the resource ('constraint problem'), specifying the input format as SMT-LIB2. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose statement that distinguishes the tool from a generic solver, even without sibling tools listed.

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 when a constraint problem is provided in SMT-LIB2 format, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Given no sibling tools exist, the implied context is acceptable but not explicit.

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