check_constant_time

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral traits: it returns a verdict, identifies leaking secrets, and cannot be overridden by the user. It stops short of describing all side-effect or edge-case behavior, but for a read-only checker this is a strong 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?

Two compact sentences convey purpose, output, and a behavioral constraint without redundancy or filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Without an output schema, the description correctly includes return semantics. It covers the core workflow (input Verilog and secrets, get a verdict) and the crucial re-run behavior; optional parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only light semantic reinforcement by referring to 'declared secret inputs' and a 'completion signal', which align with the secrets and observation parameters but do not introduce new syntax or format details.

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 ('Decide') and resource ('Verilog module's completion signal') and clearly distinguishes the tool's goal from siblings like check_masking or prove_confidential. It also states the output values (CONSTANT_TIME/LEAKY), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the use case: determining whether completion depends on declared secrets. It also adds a practical guideline ('re-run this tool after any fix') and a constraint ('cannot declare constant-time yourself'), though it does not explicitly compare with alternative sibling tools.

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