agda_constraints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Show all current unsolved constraints' without specifying whether this is a read-only operation, whether the file must be loaded first, or what happens if there are no constraints. It does not contradict annotations, but it is too sparse to fully inform the agent of behavioral traits.

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 very concise: a clear first sentence, a useful usage hint, and a parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter meaning. However, it omits important contextual details such as whether the file must be loaded via agda_load before this works, or what the output looks like if no constraints exist. Given the sibling tools include agda_load, this prerequisite is relevant and 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 schema provides only a title 'File Path' with no description, so the description's explicit 'Absolute path to the .agda file' adds crucial meaning. This fully explains the one parameter, compensating for the 0% schema coverage, though it could state requirements like existing file or loaded file.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource 'all current unsolved constraints', which unambiguously states the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools like agda_metas or agda_goal_type, and the purpose is immediately clear.

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 states it is 'Useful for debugging type errors or understanding what Agda is stuck on', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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