gx3_interlock_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds significant value by explaining that 'mutually-exclusive' is sound and 'simultaneous-possible' returns a witness but not a reachability proof. This clarifies the nature of the result and its limits beyond the schema.

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 sentences, tightly written, with the core question and the critical soundness caveat front-loaded. Every phrase adds meaning and there is no filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides useful return semantics by mentioning verdicts and witness assignments. It covers the most important caveat (not a reachability proof), which is essential for correct interpretation. Minor gaps include not describing possible error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool's 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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-specific detail, though it loosely maps device_a/device_b as coils. The schema already covers root, max_vars, and max_depth adequately.

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 action (static satisfiability check) and precise resource (two coils' ON/enable conditions). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like trace, data flow, or lint by focusing on whether two conditions can be true simultaneously.

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 makes the intended use clear: determine if two coils' ON/enable conditions can co-occur. It also signals a key limitation—'simultaneous-possible' is not a reachability proof—which helps the agent avoid over-trusting the result, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for reachability analysis.

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