agda_context

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 behavioral traits. It only restates that it retrieves context, without mentioning prerequisites (e.g., file must be loaded), error behavior for invalid goal_id, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotations.

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 front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear two-item parameter list. No redundant information or fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for selection and invocation. It covers purpose and parameter semantics. The only gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance or prerequisites, but this is a minor omission for such a straightforward read tool.

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 input schema has only parameter names with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully: file_path is defined as 'Absolute path to the .agda file' and goal_id as 'The goal/hole number (from agda_load output)'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, enabling correct invocation.

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 function: 'Get the context (available bindings) at a specific goal/hole.' This uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like agda_goal_type or agda_goal_info, which serve different purposes. The mention of 'from agda_load output' further clarifies the context of use.

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 context by noting that goal_id comes from agda_load output, indicating this tool is used after loading a file and identifying holes. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like agda_goal_info or agda_goal_type, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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