agda_load

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool type-checks, returns diagnostics, and requires a specific call order, including a refresh pattern after edits. It does not mention potential side effects, but for a load/type-check tool, this is arguably sufficient and adds substantial context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded: it states the main purpose in the first sentence, then gives usage requirements and argument details. Each 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what it does, what it returns, and the required call/refresh pattern. It is complete for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining `file_path` as 'Absolute path to the .agda file'. This adds critical semantics (absolute path and file extension) that the raw schema lacks, making it clear to the agent what value to provide.

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 verb ('Load and type-check') and resource ('an Agda file'), and explicitly mentions the outputs ('goals, errors, and warnings'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform more targeted operations like case splitting or hovering, establishing it as the foundational entry point.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'This must be called before other commands' and 'Call again after edits to refresh.' This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool and when to re-invoke it, which is essential for the interactive Agda workflow.

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