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 disclosure burden, and it omits important behavior. Most notably, the schema exposes async and deferAfterMs parameters, meaning this call can return a job handle and block or defer — none of that is mentioned. It also says nothing about cost, permissions, or whether the probe touches the filesystem/Agda binary.

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?

One front-loaded sentence listing the three reported items with zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant given the schema handles parameters.

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?

With no output schema, the description does at least enumerate what gets reported (installation, compatibility, workspaces), which covers the return content at a high level. The main gap is the async/job-handle behavior implied by the parameters, which an agent would only discover from the schema.

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 already documented in the schema with good detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the resource list, so the baseline 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') with three concrete resources: detected Agda installation, compatibility, and active workspaces. This clearly separates it from the action-oriented siblings (load, typecheck, job_*), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/environment-inspection call, likely useful before typechecking or when workspace state is unknown. There is no explicit 'call this when…' statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives.

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