agda_why_in_scope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Explain' strongly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify files or whether it requires a loaded project context. It provides minimal but acceptable transparency.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear Arg list for parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 relatively simple and the output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description does not mention any preconditions (e.g., file must exist, project must be loaded) or differentiate from similar sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 the schema having no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully explains both parameters: file_path is the absolute path to the .agda file, and name is the symbol to look up with concrete examples. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('where a name is brought into scope'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It also distinguishes from siblings like agda_definition and agda_why_in_scope_goal by focusing on scope introduction rather than definitions or goal-specific context.

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 implies usage through its purpose and parameter examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like agda_why_in_scope_goal or any prerequisites (e.g., file must be loaded). This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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