solver_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the read-only reporting nature plus what happens if a binary is missing ('whether the binary was found'). It does not cover failure modes of the report itself or permissions, but for a zero-parameter diagnostic this is a solid disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opening with the verb 'Report', then a compact parenthetical of returned fields and two brief justification clauses. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates exactly what is returned (path, found status, version string) for both binaries, which fully compensates. Nothing an agent needs before calling a no-argument diagnostic tool is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing further the description could add on parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reports which Z3 and cvc5 binaries the server resolved, and enumerates the reporting fields (path, found flag, version string). It is clearly distinguishable in kind from the sibling check_entailment/check_satisfiability/run_smtlib tools, though it never names them or explicitly says it does not invoke a solver.

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?

It gives concrete usage contexts: confirming the environment before trusting any verdict, and attaching solver versions to an audit trail. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there are no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions relative to the sibling solver-invoking tools.

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