agda_case_split

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return value ('Returns the new clauses') but does not disclose whether the tool modifies the file, any side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites beyond the parameter hints. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs an edit to the Agda file.

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, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information or 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?

The tool has a simple signature and an output schema, so return values don't need elaboration. The description provides sufficient parameter context and the crucial hint that goal_id comes from agda_load. However, for a tool likely to mutate an Agda file, the lack of any note about side effects or prerequisites reduces completeness slightly.

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 provides only parameter names with no descriptions, but the description adds meaningful context for all three parameters: file_path must be an absolute path, goal_id should come from agda_load output, and variable is the name to split on. This compensates well for the 0% schema coverage, though the variable explanation adds minimal extra value beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Case split on a variable in a goal' and what it returns: 'Returns the new clauses.' This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like agda_intro or agda_refine, which serve different purposes.

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 usage: you would use this when you want to case split a variable in a goal. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternative tools, leaving the usage context somewhat implied rather than fully articulated.

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