compile_ea

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool compiles and returns results but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's a read-only or mutating operation, potential side effects (e.g., file modifications), error handling, or performance considerations (e.g., compilation time).

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a compilation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what compilation entails (e.g., source code processing, error reporting), the format of results, or how it integrates with other tools like 'run_backtest', leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single parameter 'ea_name' with its type and format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying compilation involves an EA, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 ('Compile') and resource ('an EA on MetaTrader 4') with the outcome ('get compilation results'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sync_ea' or 'sync_ea_from_file' which might involve similar EA-related operations, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if the EA must exist locally), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'list_local_eas' or 'run_backtest', leaving usage context unclear.

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