agda_compute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior. It only states 'Normalize' and mentions file_path is 'for scope,' adding minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 highly concise, front-loaded with the primary verb, and includes a compact args list with examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no fluff.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral notes (e.g., when to prefer agda_compute_in_goal), leaving some context gaps given the large sibling set.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: file_path is an absolute path for scope, and expr is shown with an example. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though more detail on expression syntax would improve it.

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 opens with 'Normalize (evaluate) an expression,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes agda_compute from siblings like agda_infer (type inference) and agda_definition (show definition), making the tool's purpose explicit.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like agda_compute_in_goal. The description explains what the tool does and lists parameters, but offers no context for selecting among the many sibling tools.

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