agda_helper_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that Agda will generate the type signature and describes the partial application format. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the file), prerequisites (e.g., a running Agda process), or any error conditions. This adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 well-structured, with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a brief explanation of the expression format, and then a straightforward list of arguments. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it 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 has a moderate complexity level and an output schema (which likely documents return values). The description covers the main usage pattern and parameter semantics, making it complete enough for most use cases. It could mention edge cases or what happens when the helper already exists, but the output schema and the provided details are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each argument: file_path (absolute path to the .agda file), goal_id (goal/hole number from agda_load output), and expr (partial application like 'helper x y'). It also clarifies the default behavior of expr, which adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Generate a helper function type signature for a goal.' It specifies a concrete verb ('Generate') and resource ('helper function type signature'), and explains the partial application expression format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agda_goal_type 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?

The description provides implicit usage guidance by explaining how the 'expr' parameter works and the default behavior when empty ('If empty, uses whatever is in the goal'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool's name and description.

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