agda_intro

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool 'tries' (may fail) and that goals need refreshing afterward, implying a state change. But it does not mention file modification, required preconditions beyond the goal_id source, or failure 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value, including the follow-up load instruction and the parameter details. No redundancy or filler.

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 only two required parameters and an output schema, so the description covers invocation essentials well. It includes the key workflow detail (call agda_load after). It loses a point because it does not mention when to choose this over sibling tools, especially agda_refine_or_intro.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully: file_path is defined as 'Absolute path to the .agda file' and goal_id as 'The goal/hole number (from agda_load output)'. This adds concrete meaning that the schema's names alone do not convey.

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 states a specific action ('Introduce a constructor or lambda abstraction in a goal') and elaborates with 'Tries to fill the hole with an appropriate constructor or lambda.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like agda_case_split or agda_load.

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?

It gives a workflow instruction: 'Call agda_load afterwards to refresh goals.' However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related tools such as agda_refine_or_intro, agda_auto, or agda_give, so alternatives are not addressed.

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