agda_auto

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a preview by default and performs an atomic apply+typecheck when apply:true is set, which is key safety-relevant behavior. It does not cover failure modes or return values, but it does add 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?

One sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, uses 'atomically' to pack meaning, and every word 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?

Given a rich schema with full parameter documentation and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and the two key modes. It omits async behavior and return values, but those are documented or implied by the schema, so the description is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the role of apply:true but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already describes. It neither compensates nor detracts from the parameter documentation.

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 previews Agda proof search and optionally applies and typechecks it when apply:true is set. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like agda_refine and agda_case_split by focusing on proof search and the atomic apply behavior.

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 context: use this tool for proof search, and set apply:true to apply the result. It clearly communicates the two modes of operation (preview vs. apply) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it lacks the 'when not to use' clarity.

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