tlc_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for transparency. It describes what the tool checks but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file outputs, resource usage), performance characteristics (long runs), or error handling. The output file behavior is only noted in the parameter schema, not the main description.

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 two sentences with no superfluous words. The first sentence encapsulates purpose and mode; the second adds detail on what is checked. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return behavior (output file path), performance warnings, result interpretation, or actions on violation. The output_file parameter is required but its role is not highlighted in the main description.

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 baseline is 3. The main description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning 'optionally deadlock freedom' which is already clear from the deadlock parameter default. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 ('Run TLC model checker in exhaustive breadth-first mode') and the resource ('TLA+ specification'), specifying what is verified ('all reachable states against invariants, properties, and deadlock freedom'). It distinguishes well from siblings like tlc_simulate which runs in simulation mode.

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 exhaustive verification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tlc_simulate for quick checks, tlc_generate_trace_spec for trace generation). No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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