agda_retrieve_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve', implying a read operation, but gives no details about side effects, error conditions, asynchronous behavior, or the nature of the returned data. This is a significant gap for a 6-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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning and it is appropriately sized for stating the core purpose.

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 description is too terse for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the role of parameters like rewrite, async, or includeRaw, nor does it hint at the response format beyond 'type and local context'. Given the complexity, more context is needed for an agent to know how to compose calls 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 83% (>80%), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not explain any parameters, but the schema already documents most of them, so no additional compensation is needed.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and specific resource ('type and local context for an opaque goal handle'). It is distinct from sibling tools like agda_retrieve_goals, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where this tool is preferred. The description is purely definitional.

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