agda_load_module

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

The description is minimally transparent, revealing only that the operation loads and typechecks. It does not disclose the asynchronous nature suggested by the async/deferAfterMs parameters and job-handle sibling tools, nor does it mention side effects, blocking behavior, or return value characteristics. With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but does not meet it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource, and every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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?

Despite rich schema parameter documentation, the description omits important operational context for a complex tool: async behavior, job-handle returns, and output shape. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior from this description 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?

All seven parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat parameter syntax or formats. It adds only the high-level context that modulePath refers to a file on disk, which the schema already conveys; this meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Load and typecheck') and identifies the resource ('one top-level Agda module from disk'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on goals, contexts, or expressions.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like agda_typecheck or agda_retrieve_goals, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent.

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