agda_case_split

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It hints at a server mutation policy and an override via apply, but does not explain what gets mutated, whether preview is the default, or what side effects to expect.

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 short and front-loads "Case split," but the semicolon clause about server mutation policy is ambiguous and weakly structured. It is concise but not as clear or informative as a well-structured definition would be.

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?

The tool has seven parameters and no annotations or output schema, so the description should do more to explain the operation and its behavioral implications. Instead, it is too sparse to fully orient an agent beyond what the parameter schema already says.

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 input schema already documents all seven parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 phrase "Case split" identifies the operation, but it lacks an explicit object such as the Agda goal being split and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like agda_refine or agda_auto. The remainder of the description focuses on server mutation policy rather than clarifying the tool's purpose.

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 guidance about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool is the alternative. Mentioning that "apply overrides that policy" describes a parameter behavior, not a usage condition.

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