lean_hammer_premise

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds a rate limit (6req/30s) and specifies the return format (lemma names). No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences plus a rate limit. The purpose is front-loaded, every word adds value, and there is no verbosity. Ideal conciseness.

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 the 4 parameters, full annotation coverage, and presence of an output schema (implied), the description covers purpose, return type, and rate limit. It lacks examples but is adequate for a straightforward suggestion 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only linking line/column to 'goal position'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it provides premise suggestions for automation tactics at a goal position, listing specific uses like `simp only [...]`, `aesop`, or hints. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lean_leansearch or lean_loogle, which are general search tools.

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 implies usage for getting premise suggestions during automated proof attempts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lean_leansearch or lean_loogle. The rate limit is mentioned but not a usage guideline.

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