agda_module_contents_goal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic listing operation and goal context, but does not mention whether the module must be already loaded, how the goal context affects results, or possible error conditions. It also does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, though 'List' suggests so.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean Args list. Each parameter has a concise, useful one-line explanation, and no unnecessary information is included.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose and parameters adequately, but given the nuanced goal-context nature of Agda tools, it could benefit from explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., requiring a prior agda_load) or how the goal context changes results. The output schema helps, but overall the description is only minimally complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: file_path is absolute, goal_id comes from agda_load output, and module_name is the module/record to inspect. This adds practical value beyond the bare schema and helps an agent provide valid 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 lists module contents specifically in the context of a goal, with a distinct goal_id parameter. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool agda_module_contents, which presumably operates without goal context. The verb 'List' and resource 'contents of a module' are specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'in the context of a goal' implies this tool is for goal-specific exploration, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over agda_module_contents or other goal tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage largely inferred rather than explicit.

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