Run the same tests against two module versions to verify equivalent behavior; returns null when no tests exist, leaving equivalence unproven.
Run the same tests (importing from module target) against two versions of a module. equivalent is null
when there were no tests to run (none given, and none could be generated): unproven, not shown to differ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tests | No | ||
| original | Yes | ||
| minimized | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only describes the null-case meaning of the `equivalent` result and does not explain what happens on non-null results, whether tests can be generated, execution side effects, or any preconditions.
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 focused sentence with a clarifying note about the null case. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though the sentence is somewhat dense and could be split for readability.
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 three parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It leaves the meaning of the two required parameters and the broader output behavior undefined, which makes correct invocation difficult.
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 0%, so the description should compensate but mostly does not. It only mentions `tests` as possibly absent and by implication of null result, but it never explains what `original` and `minimized` are or how they should be supplied.
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 says it runs the same tests against two versions of a module, which gives a rough sense of a differential test operation. However, the exact relationship between the tool name (prove_equivalent), the parameters (original, minimized, tests), and the output (equivalent) is not stated clearly, and it is not distinguished from sibling tools like minimize or verify_lean.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as minimize or check_reuse. The only hints come from the explanation of the `equivalent` result being null, which implies a scenario but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.