compile_check

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

No annotations provided, but the description clearly states the tool does not execute code and returns structured errors/warnings with line numbers. This is transparent for a non-destructive check.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words. Every part is meaningful.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return value (structured errors/warnings with line numbers). It is complete for a compile-check tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds minor detail (normalized to DOS 8.3) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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 it performs a compile-only syntax/semantic check without execution and returns structured errors/warnings with line numbers. This differentiates it from siblings like compile_and_run.

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 says it is 'perfect for fast iteration and CI-style validation,' implying use cases. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with all siblings, but the sibling list provides context.

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