lean_multi_attempt

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns goal state for each tactic, which is beyond the annotations. It also confirms no file modification. This is good transparency, though it could mention that the tool runs tactics without side effects.

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, focused sentence: 'Try multiple tactics without modifying file. Returns goal state for each.' It is front-loaded with the core action, no superfluous words. Perfectly concise.

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 tool's simplicity (4 params, output schema, annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. It might briefly note that results correspond to snippet order. But overall, it is sufficiently complete with minimal gaps.

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 adequate descriptions for each parameter. The description mentions 'tactics' and 'goal state', but adds little beyond the schema. The schema already notes '3+ recommended' for snippets, which is not in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Try multiple tactics without modifying file. Returns goal state for each.' It specifies the verb ('try'), the resource ('tactics'), and the result ('goal state'). Among siblings, it uniquely offers multi-tactic trial without file modification, distinguishing it from lean_goal (single goal) and lean_run_code (execution).

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 trying multiple tactics read-only, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. It doesn't state when not to use it, e.g., if a single tactic is needed or if file modification is desired. However, the context of siblings provides some differentiation.

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