agda_goal_type

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that goal_id comes from 'agda_load output', implying a prerequisite on loading the file, and clarifies that the result excludes context. However, it does not explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe behavior on invalid inputs or error conditions.

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 and well-structured: a single one-line summary followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics, and the hint about agda_load output provides workflow context. It lacks explicit statements about when the file must be loaded or error handling, but for a simple query tool, this is largely adequate.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the Args section must compensate. It adds valuable meaning: file_path is specified as an 'Absolute path to the .agda file', and goal_id is defined as 'The goal/hole number (from agda_load output)', linking to a prerequisite and clarifying the expected input format beyond the bare schema 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Get the type of a specific goal/hole'. The parenthetical '(without context)' distinguishes it from sibling tools like agda_goal_type_context_infer or agda_goal_type_context_check, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without context' hints at a scoping choice but does not name sibling tools or provide any exclusion criteria. An agent would not know whether to prefer this over agda_goal_info or agda_goal_type_context_infer.

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