tlc_generate_trace_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior (runs TLC with -generateSpecTE, produces files), but does not explain side effects, error handling, or requirements (e.g., TLC installation, output overwrite behavior). This is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded with the action, and then the purpose. Every sentence contributes value with no wasted words. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return values and prerequisites. It mentions output files but not their content or structure. It does not explain failure modes or dependencies (e.g., TLC path). Sufficient for basic understanding but lacks completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only restates the purpose of the tool. No additional value for parameter understanding.

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 runs TLC with -generateSpecTE to produce a Trace Explorer spec (SpecTE.tla/cfg). It identifies the specific verb and resource, and hints at debugging counter-examples, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tlc_check or tlc_simulate.

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 mentions it is useful for debugging counter-examples, providing context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggestions of alternative tools (e.g., tlc_check for general model-checking, tlc_simulate for simulation).

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