run_prover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose the return shape (SZS verdict vs raw output) plus notable failure verdicts (Timeout, ResourceOut, GaveUp) an agent must handle. It omits rate limits, remote-service error behavior, and whether calls are billed/slow, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the verdict enumeration is genuinely informative rather than filler. The trailing ellipsis list is slightly loose but earns its place by signalling the range of outcomes.

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, the description compensates by naming the return type and example verdicts, and all parameters are schema-documented. Missing pieces are minor: no default time limit, no note on output size or what happens with invalid TPTP (lint_problem exists but is not referenced).

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%, so all four parameters including the raw flag and system_id format are documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces 'TPTP-format problem' and the raw-output alternative, adding little beyond what the schema already says, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Submit") and resource ("TPTP-format problem to a specific prover on SystemOnTPTP"), and the singular prover framing separates it from compare_provers and prove_isabelle. An agent can tell immediately what it does and what it returns.

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 'Message' cross-reference to describe_szs covers how to interpret the returned verdict, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over compare_provers or prove_isabelle, or what to do when a prover returns GaveUp; usage is only implied by the single-prover framing.

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