Explain why a theorem's workspace dependencies were extracted the way they were, with optional recursive tracing to pinpoint issues in dependency extraction.
Explain how workspace dependencies were extracted for one theorem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recursive | No | ||
| global_theorem_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Explain how...were extracted' strongly implies a read-only diagnostic operation and clarifies the single-theorem scope. However, it does not disclose whether the call has side effects, how the recursive parameter affects behavior, or what form the explanation takes.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and readable, though its brevity leaves important parameter and usage details unaddressed.
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?
This is a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to provide substantial context. It omits the meaning/effect of recursive, the expected diagnostic output, and how it relates to the sibling get_dependency_diagnostics, leaving gaps that an agent must infer.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It only alludes to the required parameter via 'for one theorem' and says nothing about the optional recursive parameter, leaving half of the parameter surface unexplained.
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 identifies the resource ('how workspace dependencies were extracted for one theorem'), making it clear this is a diagnostic tool rather than a dependency-computation tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling get_dependency_diagnostics, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_dependency_diagnostics or workspace_get_dependencies. 'For one theorem' is a scoping hint, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.