agda_search_about

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only search operation (no side effects), scoped to a specific file via 'file_path.' It does not describe return format, but an output schema is present, so that is not required. The description is transparent enough for a search tool.

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 well-structured. It opens with a clear action statement, adds a brief utility note, and then provides a clean Args list. No unnecessary repetition or filler. Every sentence contributes value.

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 simple two-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the purpose, the parameters, and the intended use case. There are no missing edge cases or prerequisites for this search tool. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter beyond the bare schema. It specifies that 'file_path' is the 'Absolute path to the .agda file' and 'query' is 'Space-separated names to search for in types.' This fully compensates for the schema's 0% coverage and adds meaningful semantic detail.

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 a specific action: 'Search for definitions whose type mentions the given names.' It identifies the resource (definitions in .agda files) and distinguishes from sibling tools like agda_definition (which gives a specific definition) and agda_infer (which infers types). The addition 'Useful for finding relevant lemmas, functions, or constructors' further clarifies its purpose.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: it is 'useful for finding relevant lemmas, functions, or constructors.' This implies it is a search/discovery tool, distinguishing it from other tools that operate on a current goal or expression. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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