tla_state_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states it loads a DOT file and returns structured data, but omits details like error handling, file size limits, or performance implications. Minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 concise sentences covering action and format options. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sparse. It does not explain the structure of returned data (e.g., what 'structured format' entails) or how modes like 'traces_only' and 'output_file' affect the response. Incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it lists formats but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints.

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 action ('load a TLC-generated DOT state graph file and return it in a structured format') and distinguishes the tool from siblings like tlc_check or tlc_simulate by focusing on state graph exploration. It specifies supported formats (dot, structured, json) and mentions disambiguated actions, invariants, and violation traces.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tlc_coverage or tlc_simulate). The description implies usage for state graph exploration, but does not provide when-not-to-use or contrast with sibling tools.

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