prove_isabelle

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

With no annotations, the description carries substantial behavioral context: it discloses that theory text is written into a shared directory, processed on a long-lived `AtpMcp.IsabelleSession`, and that host/port/credentials are fixed per server. It does not fully explain overwrite behavior, failure modes, or return values beyond the `raw` parameter hint.

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 action, then gives the relevant execution mechanics, then routes TPTP/THF users elsewhere. The three sentences are dense but each serves a clear purpose.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema proof submission tool, the description covers purpose, side effects, fixed session configuration, and the key alternative route. It is nearly complete, though it does not explicitly describe expected output or failure/overwrite behavior.

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 four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context about theory submission and session configuration but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 hand-written Isabelle/HOL theory to the configured Isabelle server. It also distinguishes this from the sibling route for TPTP/THF problems via `query_backend` with `backend: "isabelle"`.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: hand-written Isabelle/HOL theories. It also names the alternative for TPTP/THF problems and the exact sibling tool and parameter to use instead.

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