agda_solve_one

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the goal state changes (requiring agda_load) and reveals a limitation (only works on fully instantiated goals). It stops short of describing failure behavior or file modifications, but adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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: one sentence for purpose, two lines for conditions/action, and a simple args list. No redundancy or filler.

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 is simple with two parameters, and the description covers purpose, conditions, and parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, return value details are unnecessary. The reload instruction and unification condition complete the picture for this tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the 'Args' section explains file_path as an absolute path and goal_id as the goal number from agda_load output. This provides essential meaning that the schema lacks.

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 solves a single goal, with the specific condition that the solution is determined by unification. This distinguishes it from siblings like agda_solve_all and other goal-manipulation tools.

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?

It provides an explicit precondition ('Only works if the goal has been fully instantiated') and a follow-up action ('Call agda_load afterwards to refresh goals'). While it does not name alternative tools, the condition gives clear context for when to use this tool.

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