agda_elaborate_give

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a normalized expression and that subsequent state changes require agda_load, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error behavior, or whether it modifies the file, leaving some behavioral aspects 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 compact and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose, then a brief differentiating note, a follow-up instruction, and a clean parameter list. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 description provides enough context for an agent to select and use the tool: it explains the difference from agda_give, the need to refresh with agda_load, and the parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. Missing details like prerequisites or failure modes are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: file_path is an absolute .agda path, goal_id comes from agda_load output, and expr is the fill expression. This compensates well for the schema's lack of detail, though it could include more constraints (e.g., expression input format).

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 it fills a goal/hole with an elaborated solution, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool agda_give by noting it returns the fully elaborated (normalized) expression, which eliminates ambiguity.

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 contrasts with agda_give, indicating when this tool is preferred (when elaborated/normalized output is desired). It also advises calling agda_load afterwards to refresh goals, which is actionable guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond agda_give.

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