agda_normalize_expression

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 it says nothing about the async/job-handle model, blocking behavior, or timeouts that dominate the parameter set. The only behavioral hint is the vague scope distinction, which is far from sufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 filler, so it is concise. But it is concise by omission rather than by precision – the one sentence could easily carry the missing scope and behavior context without becoming bloated.

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 tool with 8 parameters, an async job model, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is well short of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The scope distinction is the only real content and even that is under-explained.

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 only 50%, and the description explains only the workspace/goal scope split, adding no meaning for the four undocumented parameters. Notably the mode enum (ignore_abstract, head, use_show_instance) is left completely unexplained despite being central to how normalization behaves.

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 names a specific verb+resource (normalize an expression), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it never explains what 'normalize' produces in Agda terms (a normal form) and the phrase 'workspace or goal-local scope' is ambiguous, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish this from siblings like agda_infer_type or agda_auto.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as agda_infer_type, agda_refine, and agda_auto, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the agent to guess which tool applies to a given proof state.

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