agda_hover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what info is fetched but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the position must be exact, how errors are handled (e.g., symbol not found), or any side effects (though likely none). The description is too minimal to fully inform an agent about runtime behavior.

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. The opening sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 and has an output schema (per context signals), so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks any mention of usage context or edge cases (e.g., file not loaded, invalid position), making it slightly less complete for a tool with no annotations.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. It explains each parameter in the Args section: file_path is an absolute path, line is 1-based, character is 1-based. This is critical for correct invocation and goes beyond the schema which only provides titles and types. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates.

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 function: 'Get type/definition info for a symbol at a position.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like agda_definition (which likely fetches a definition by name) and agda_infer (type inference). The scope is precise.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., file must be loaded) or contrast with sibling tools that might overlap in purpose. The context of sibling tools suggests some possible overlap, but the description offers no differentiation.

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