agda_solve_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions the need to refresh after solving, but does not disclose what 'solve' does to the file, whether it can partially succeed, or any side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 appropriately sized, with the core purpose in the first sentence, a usage note in the second, and a concise parameter definition. No wasted words.

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 description covers the core action and a follow-up step, but does not explain edge cases such as when unification does not determine solutions, or the effect on goals in the buffer. Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the tool's behavior warrants more detail for an agent to use 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 adds meaning beyond the schema: 'Absolute path to the .agda file' specifies the format and purpose, which the schema's 'File Path' title does not. With one parameter, this is sufficient compensation for the schema's lack of description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Solve all goals whose solutions have been determined by unification.' This specific verb-object relationship and the condition distinguish it from sibling tools like agda_solve_one and agda_auto.

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 the follow-up action 'Call agda_load afterwards to refresh goals,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for multiple goals with determined solutions, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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