agda_module_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists top-level names but does not describe potential side effects, error conditions, or assumptions (e.g., file path validity, module loading state). Given the simple read-only nature, a 2 reflects the lack of explicit behavioral context beyond the literal action.

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 with the primary action. The Args block is well-structured and uses an efficient format with examples. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core usage. However, it lacks contextual information such as whether the module must be already loaded, what 'top-level names' includes, and how errors are handled. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the gaps in usage context bring it to a minimum viable score.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining both parameters: file_path as absolute path to the .agda file and module_name with examples. This adds meaning beyond the raw parameter names and helps the agent construct correct arguments.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('top-level names exported by a module'). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool agda_module_contents_goal, relying on name similarity to signal context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides parameter explanations but no context on prerequisites (e.g., whether the module must be loaded in Agda) or exclusions. The sibling tool agda_module_contents_goal suggests a goal-context variant, but this is not mentioned.

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