agda_goal_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Get'), and it adds useful context that goal_id comes from agda_load output, indicating a dependency. However, it does not describe error behavior, prerequisites, or relationship to other inspection tools.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence summary plus an args list. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 (2 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials. It explains what the tool does and defines both parameters. It could be more complete by mentioning how it differs from similar goal-inspection tools, but the core usage is well covered.

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 meaning to both parameters: file_path is 'Absolute path to the .agda file' and goal_id is 'goal/hole number (from agda_load output)', which goes beyond the bare schema titles and types.

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 'Get' and names the resource ('type and context of a specific goal/hole'), making the core purpose clear. However, sibling tools like agda_goal_type, agda_context, and agda_goal_type_context_infer appear to overlap, and the description does not differentiate this tool from them.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large set of sibling tools with similar goals, the absence of usage context or exclusions makes it hard for an agent to select this tool reliably.

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