agda_auto

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, yet 'server mutation policy' is never explained: it does not say whether proof search mutates the module state, what the default policy is, or what happens on failure. Async, timeout, and deferral behavior are only visible in the schema, not in the description.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the compression leaves key terms like 'server mutation policy' undefined, making it concise at the cost of clarity.

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?

For a seven-parameter, goal-mutating proof-search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It never explains the mutation policy, the async/job-handle behavior, or default versus overridden settings, leaving the agent to infer critical behavior from parameter names alone.

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 100%, so all seven parameters including goal, apply, async, query, timeoutMs, includeRaw, and deferAfterMs are already documented in the schema. The description's mention that 'apply overrides it' merely restates the schema and adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run Agda proof search'. It is distinguishable from siblings like agda_refine and agda_case_split by the proof-search framing, though the trailing clause 'apply overrides it' is oblique and does not clarify how it differs from other goal-mutating tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over agda_refine or agda_case_split, nor on prerequisites such as having a valid goal handle from the latest module state. The only routing hint is the cryptic 'using the server mutation policy; apply overrides it', which does not tell the agent when to invoke the tool.

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