agda_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool reports information; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it can block or return a job handle, what the response format is, or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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, well-structured sentence that is concise and to the point. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's 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 lists the kinds of information returned (installation, compatibility, workspaces), providing a reasonable overview. However, given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it does not explain the output structure, potential job-handle behavior, or the effect of parameters like includeRaw. The description is adequate but could be more complete.

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 four parameters (async, timeoutMs, includeRaw, deferAfterMs) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides complete semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Report' and names the resource: Agda installation, compatibility, and active workspaces. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that load modules, typecheck, or retrieve goals, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's name and description: use it when you need server/installation information. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives, no examples, and no exclusions, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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