agda_typecheck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects, return behavior, and other traits. It only says 'reload and typecheck' without mentioning that reloading may change Agda state, that the call can block or return a job handle, or what the output contains. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a well-structured schema, and every word contributes to defining the tool's 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?

Despite full schema coverage, the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's place in the workflow, its return values, or side effects. It lacks behavioral context that would normally come from the description or annotations.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify how parameters like async, diagnosticsOnly, or includeContexts affect the operation, but that is not required given the rich schema.

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 ('Reload and typecheck') and the resource ('active module in a workspace'), distinguishing it from siblings like agda_load_module or goal retrieval tools. The verb-resource pair is specific and 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be called after editing a module or that it is the primary way to get type errors, nor does it exclude any contexts. A single sentence describing the action provides no usage context.

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