agda_case_split

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that apply:true atomically applies and typechecks, and that applying is a guarded write. However, it does not explain what happens after preview (return value), side effects on the buffer/file, or fallback behavior if typecheck fails. It provides some transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and free of filler. It communicates the two modes efficiently without redundancy.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, two modes, and no output schema. The description explains only the core purpose and apply behavior, but omits important context such as return formats (preview output, job handles), how async/defer behavior affects the call, and what happens when apply:true fails. The absence of an output schema makes this omission more impactful. The description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond noting the apply:true behavior, which is already covered in the schema. Thus the baseline of 3 stands.

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 identifies the tool as performing a case split operation with two modes: preview and apply-and-typecheck. It uses a specific verb ('Preview'/'apply') and resource ('case split'), and is distinct from sibling tools like refine or auto, which handle different operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to preview a case split or to apply and typecheck it with apply:true. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the mode distinction implicitly guides usage. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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