agda_auto_all

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does disclose a key side effect: solving goals alters the goal state, requiring agda_load to refresh. It also uses 'Try' to indicate potential failure. However, it does not explain whether the operation is destructive, whether it modifies the file, or what happens when goals cannot be solved. This is moderate transparency but lacks comprehensive 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?

The description is concise and well-structured. The first line states the core purpose, the second line gives a critical follow-up action, and the Args section cleanly documents the parameter. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the essential usage: what it does, the parameter, and the necessary follow-up. However, given the large sibling set (agda_auto, agda_solve_all), it would benefit from explicitly differentiating when to use this over alternatives. Still, the description is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by providing a clear docstring for the only parameter: 'Absolute path to the .agda file.' This adds the crucial detail of being an absolute path, which the schema does not specify. The description effectively clarifies the parameter's meaning beyond the schema's minimal type/title info.

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's action: 'Try to automatically solve all visible goals.' This uses a specific verb ('solve') and resource ('visible goals'), and the naming convention (agda_auto_all) suggests it handles all goals, distinguishing it from siblings like agda_auto (likely single goal) and agda_solve_all. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 a use case: when you want to solve all visible goals. It also provides a crucial follow-up instruction ('Call agda_load afterwards to refresh goals'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., agda_auto, agda_solve_all) or any scenarios where it should not be used. Thus, the usage guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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