compare_provers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that provers run simultaneously and verdicts are reported side-by-side, but it does not explain failure handling, result ordering, cost/resource implications, or what happens when one prover times out.

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 three tightly written sentences with the core action and comparative purpose front-loaded. The pointer to describe_szs is a useful, non-redundant addition.

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?

For a three-parameter execution tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the high-level return value as side-by-side SZS verdicts and routes agents to describe_szs for vocabulary. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior and per-prover timeout semantics.

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 all parameters are already documented structurally. The description only adds general context about TPTP problems and SystemOnTPTP provers, without adding format details for system_ids or time_limit_sec.

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 states a specific verb and resource: submit a TPTP problem to multiple SystemOnTPTP provers simultaneously and report SZS verdicts side-by-side. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling run_prover by emphasizing multiple provers and comparative output.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: cross-checking and finding the fastest prover for a problem class. It also points to describe_szs for interpreting output, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer run_prover or list exclusion conditions.

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