run_smtlib

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full load, and it does substantial work: execution is verbatim, the server does not interpret English or modify the script, results are cross-checked across two solvers, solver DISAGREEMENT is the headline finding, and bounded unsat must not be upgraded. It leaves timeout/error behavior and the raw return shape unstated, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads what it does, then the usage trigger, then the caller responsibility and reporting discipline. Slightly verbose with multiple restated cautionary clauses, but every sentence carries distinct information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the crucial epistemic guidance (report exactly what came back, don't overclaim unboundedness from bounded unsat). It does not describe return format or timeout semantics, but for a stateless script-runner this is close to sufficient.

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 0% over 2 params, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `script` is the caller-authored full script including (check-sat), which adds real meaning, but `timeout_ms` is never explained (units, behavior on expiry) despite its 10000 default. Half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a fully-assembled SMT-LIB v2 script verbatim, cross-checked in both Z3 and cvc5') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by naming their fixed shapes. An agent can tell it apart from check_entailment/check_satisfiability without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger: use this when check_entailment / check_satisfiability's fixed shapes (declarations + premises + single conclusion) are not expressive enough, with concrete examples (multiple check-sat, push/pop, solver-specific tactics). This is textbook alternative routing.

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