compile_structured_rung

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

The annotations already declare this as read-only (readOnlyHint: true). The description complements this by confirming 'does not edit a project' and revealing it is a 'preview' feature, which adds a temporal aspect beyond the static annotation. However, beyond that confirmation, it doesn't describe expected response, error conditions, or compiler behavior in detail, staying close to what annotations already show.

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 two sentences, with the core action in the first and a crucial caveat in the second. Every word earns its place; there is zero fluff or repetition of the tool name/title.

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?

For a tool with only 2 parameters, both required, and an output schema present, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, that it's a safe preview operation, and its side-effect-free nature. It lacks only a brief note on when to use it versus the sibling compilation/editing tools to be fully complete for the most common scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the domain ('boolean AST' and 'CX mnemonic'), giving context for the 'expression' and 'outputs' fields, but it never explicitly maps these terms to parameters. An agent still has to guess that 'expression' is the AST and 'outputs' are the mnemonic targets, so there's room for more explicit mapping.

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 verb and resource: 'Compile a boolean AST into CX mnemonic'. It specifies the exact instruction set ('LD/AND LD/OR LD plus OUT/SET/RSET') and explicitly says it does not edit a project. While it's clear this is a compilation step, it doesn't directly name sibling tools like analyze_rung or simulate_rung for contrast, preventing a 5.

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 implies a safe, side-effect-free compile operation ('does not edit a project') but gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like replace_rung_structured or simulate_rung. No explicit 'use when...' or 'use case' is mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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