find_leak

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the analytical behavior: identifying secret inputs that contribute to the completion signal and reporting the fan-in cone size. However, it does not mention side effects, required inputs, error handling, or output format, leaving gaps for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and expected result, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only the core purpose. It omits parameter details, usage guidance, and output structure, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with confidence.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (verilog, secrets, module, observation) or their roles. 'Secret inputs' vaguely relates to `secrets`, and 'completion signal' might relate to `observation`, but the description adds no usable parameter-level semantics.

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 ('Localise') and resource ('timing leak'), and clearly states the tool's output: naming secret inputs that reach the completion signal and the fan-in cone size. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_constant_time, which likely verifies rather than localizes.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_constant_time or check_masking. The phrasing 'Localise a timing leak' implies a use case, but no context, exclusions, or alternative tool references are provided.

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