lean_verify

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

The description adds a key behavioral detail: 'Only scans the given file, not imports.' However, it does not disclose the nature of the operation (read vs write) beyond what annotations state. The readOnlyHint=false annotation contradicts the tool's apparent read-only behavior, but the description does not clarify this.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately adds a critical scope limitation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It states the main action, optional scan, and file-scope limitation. It could be improved by explaining what 'check theorem axioms' entails (e.g., whether it runs the Lean kernel), but it is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new information about individual parameters beyond what the schema provides, though it does provide overall context about the file_path scope (not scanning imports).

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 core function: 'Check theorem axioms + optional source scan.' It also provides a specific behavioral distinction from siblings: 'Only scans the given file, not imports.' This is precise and 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lean_build or lean_goal. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or conditions for effective use.

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