agda_metas

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, and adding 'all open' clarifies scope, but it does not disclose potential side effects, dependencies (e.g., file must be loaded), or error behavior. The description adds some context but lacks explicit safety or prerequisite notes.

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: a single lead sentence plus a clearly formatted Args block. Every element earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers core behavior and parameter meaning. It falls short only in usage guidance, but that is already penalized in dimension 2, so overall completeness is strong.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates by defining file_path as 'Absolute path to the .agda file', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. It specifies absolute path and file extension, which is valuable for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('all open meta-variables (goals) and their types'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like agda_goal_type (single goal) and agda_context (context) by emphasizing 'all' metas.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., agda_goal_type, agda_constraints, agda_context). The description states what it does but not in which situations it is the preferred choice or if any prerequisites exist (like loading the file first).

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