agda_definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without mentioning prerequisites (e.g., loaded file), side effects, or error conditions. The behavior beyond the basic action remains opaque.

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 exceptionally concise, with a single purpose sentence and a clean parameter list. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 is simple, but the description omits any environmental context such as the need for a loaded Agda file or how the definition result is returned. Since an output schema exists, return details are covered elsewhere, but prerequisites and usage context are absent.

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 must compensate. It adds useful semantics like 'Absolute path' and '1-based' for line/character, which goes beyond the schema titles, but it does not fully elaborate on how these positions relate to the Agda buffer.

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 'Go to the definition of a symbol at a position,' which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agda_hover or agda_infer, 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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided, nor are alternatives mentioned. The intended use is implied by the description and name, but the description lacks any contrast with sibling tools or exclusions.

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