agda_why_in_scope_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavior (goal-local scope lookup) and the dependency on prior agda_load via the goal_id parameter. The verb 'Explain' implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state non-mutation or error behavior.

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 two sentences plus a compact argument list. It front-loads the purpose and comparison, then enumerates parameters without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a focused lookup with an output schema, so returning value details are not required. The description covers purpose, usage context, and prerequisites, making it adequate for an agent to invoke correctly. It could mention explicit exclusions against other sibling tools, but the comparison to agda_why_in_scope provides sufficient contextual guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides concise descriptions for all three parameters (file_path, goal_id, name), adding meaning beyond the bare schema titles. The descriptions are sufficient for an agent to populate the arguments correctly.

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 and resource: 'Explain where a name is brought into scope, in the context of a goal.' It clearly differentiates from its sibling agda_why_in_scope by noting access to the goal's local scope.

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 comparison: 'Like agda_why_in_scope but with access to the goal's local scope,' which tells the agent when to prefer this tool over the base version. It also notes the prerequisite that goal_id comes from agda_load output.

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