goalState

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state what is returned (raw goal text, structured goals, error when outside a proof), whether the position must be inside a checked region, or any timing/state requirements, leaving significant gaps for a proof-assistant query tool.

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 fragment that is arguably too terse rather than concise; the 'Proof ... QED' ellipsis obscures rather than clarifies. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns, so the brevity costs comprehension.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three fully undocumented parameters, the description would need to explain return shape and preconditions. It instead supplies only a fragmentary resource name, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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% across three required parameters (file, line, column), so the description must compensate. 'At a position' loosely maps to the line/column/file triple, but it adds no detail on path format, 0- vs 1-based indexing, or whether line/column refer to the proof file's coordinates.

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 names the resource ('goal state at a position inside Proof ... QED'), which conveys that it retrieves proof-state information for a source location. However, it lacks a clear verb and the 'Proof ... QED' ellipsis is cryptic, so an agent must infer it means 'within a proof block'. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like hover or diagnostics that also operate on a file position.

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 phrase 'inside Proof ... QED' is the only hint of applicability, implying the tool is only meaningful within a proof context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or pointer to alternatives. The agent gets no guidance on how this differs from hover or diagnostics for the same position.

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