logisim_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it lists the static checks performed, discloses that it also simulates 'all input combinations when small', and names the failure signatures it looks for (E conflicts, x outputs, oscillation). It omits whether the file is modified and what the reported result looks like.

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?

A single dense sentence, but the core purpose is front-loaded and every listed check earns its place by telling the agent what defects to expect. The semicolon-heavy run-on structure is less scannable than a bulleted list would be.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone, and it adequately covers what the tool examines and that a simulation pass may occur. It leaves the return format and read-only status unspecified, which is a modest gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only implicitly touches the simulate parameter ('then simulate it') without adding format or default semantics, 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 and resource ('Find wiring mistakes in a circuit') and enumerates the concrete defect classes it detects, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like logisim_verify or logisim_simulate, even though it duplicates simulation behavior.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for diagnosing a circuit file, but the description never says when to prefer it over logisim_verify, logisim_simulate, or logisim_inspect. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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