lu_check_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing behavioral traits: it runs static property checking (Layer 1) and optionally formal verification (Layer 2) if Lean 4 is installed. It describes what gets processed (all protocols in source) and the two-layer approach, though it could mention performance or resource implications.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter and return sections are well-structured, though the example in the Args section could be slightly more concise. Overall, most sentences earn their 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 tool's complexity (property checking with optional verification), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, parameters with examples, and return structure in detail, making the output schema sufficient for understanding results without redundancy.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the parameter 'protocol_text' in detail, including its required format (full .lu protocol text with a 'properties:' block) and provides a concrete example, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 with specific verbs ('verify', 'runs') and resources ('.lu protocol', 'static property checker', 'formal verification'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on property checking rather than listing templates, loading protocols, or verifying messages.

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 context (verifying formal safety properties in .lu protocols) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lu_verify_message. It mentions optional Lean 4 verification, which provides some guidance but lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.

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