agda_normalize_expression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires an active goal, what side effects may occur, or what the return value looks like. The one-sentence description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 and front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning: the action, the target, and the scoping. There is no wasted verbiage or repetition of schema details.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about return values, error conditions, ordering constraints, or the differences between workspace and goal-local scopes. This is a sparse description for a complex tool, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke it correctly.

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 50%, leaving goal, mode, workspace, and expression undocumented. The description's mention of 'workspace or goal-local scope' adds partial meaning to the workspace and goal parameters, clarifying their role as scope selectors. However, it does not explain the 'mode' parameter or provide details on how the scopes interact with 'expression', so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states the action ('Normalize an expression') with a specific resource and scoping ('in workspace or goal-local scope'). The verb 'normalize' is unique among sibling tools (agda_infer_type, agda_typecheck, etc.), so it distinguishes this tool from alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, without any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred use cases. The mention of workspace/goal-local scope is a hint but not explicit when-to-use guidance.

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