prove_equivalence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the counterexample behavior, receipt output, and size limitations, which are meaningful behavioral traits beyond just 'prove'. It does not mention side effects, but none are apparent for a demonstration prover.

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, each with distinct value: action, input/output format, and limitations. No wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 4-param tool with no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects: equivalence proof, counterexample, receipt, and scope limitation. It does not specify receipt contents, but sibling tools like verify_receipt handle that aspect, so this is acceptable.

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?

Input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context about circuits being gate lists over named signals, which applies to both circuit_a and circuit_b, but does not elaborate on out_path or parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already 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 uses a specific verb ('prove') and resource ('two small combinational circuits') and clearly distinguishes from sibling certificate-verification tools by stating the core equivalence-checking behavior. It also mentions the counterexample output, which further clarifies the scope.

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?

Explicitly states size limitation ('Small instances only') and that it is a demonstration prover, not for production. This gives clear guidance on when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for larger instances.

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