agda_refine_or_intro

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the decision process and the need to call agda_load afterwards. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, side effects on the file, or any required state beyond the goal_id.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is clearly structured and each line adds value. It could be slightly tighter, but no extraneous filler is present.

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 combined behavior and no annotations, the description adequately covers prerequisites (goal_id from agda_load), the decision logic, and a required post-step. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks notes on failure cases, but overall it is complete for typical use.

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 thoroughly explains all three parameters. It provides the exact meaning of file_path, goal_id (from agda_load output), and adds crucial detail that expr can be empty for intro, which is not evident from the schema.

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 'Refine or introduce in a goal' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it 'Combines refine and intro', directly referencing the two sibling tools it merges.

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 explains the auto-selection behavior (refine if expr given, otherwise intro), which implies when the tool would be used, and mentions the follow-up 'Call agda_load afterwards'. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over the individual agda_refine or agda_intro tools, or provide exclusion criteria.

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