gx3_interlock_check

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does so by explaining that a 'mutually-exclusive' verdict is sound while 'simultaneous-possible' is not a reachability proof, which is crucial for interpreting results. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool's existence, though it omits details like side effects or return format.

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, no wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded. The caveat about verdict soundness is essential and succinctly included.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of explaining result semantics. It does that well by clarifying the soundness of verdicts and the existence of witness assignments. However, it does not describe the expected input format or what the witness looks like, leaving a slight gap for an agent.

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?

The schema provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description's contribution to parameter understanding is minimal. It mentions 'coils' aligning with device_a/device_b, but the schema already handles parameter semantics. 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 the tool's purpose: a static satisfiability check on two coils' ON/enable conditions. The specific verb 'check' with a precise resource ('coils' conditions) and the interlock verification context distinguish it from all sibling tools, which perform different analyses.

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 the tool is used to verify whether two coils can be ON simultaneously, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over sibling tools or mention any exclusions. No alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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