agda_query_metavariables

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. 'Query' implies a read operation, but the description does not explain async/job behavior, whether the call blocks, what visible versus invisible metavariables means operationally, or what the response contains.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words and the core resource is front-loaded. It is perhaps too terse, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.

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?

There are five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain the job-handle/async model, return values, or how querying metavariables relates to the surrounding Agda workflow tools.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including async, timeoutMs, workspace, includeRaw, and deferAfterMs. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Query ... metavariables'. It also narrows scope to visible and interaction-backend invisible metavariables, but does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like agda_retrieve_goals or agda_retrieve_constraints.

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?

It says what the tool queries but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives such as agda_retrieve_goals or agda_retrieve_constraints. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues for tool selection.

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