validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the operation compiles rather than tests, but discloses nothing about side effects, whether artifacts/state are written, permission requirements, or what a successful or failed result looks like.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so there is no waste. But it reads as a terse fragment whose meaning depends on Jac-specific jargon rather than being front-loaded with usable information.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter leave the agent short of what it needs to invoke this correctly. The description would need to carry behavior and parameter semantics itself and does not.

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% and the single parameter "identity" is entirely undocumented. The description adds no meaning to it — it is unclear whether identity is a source path, module name, or handle — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a verb and resource ("Compile trusted candidate source") and explicitly rules out runtime testing/sandboxing, which separates it from a test-runner. However "through real Jac MCP" and "trusted candidate source" are opaque, and it never says how it differs from siblings context/ingest.

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?

It gives one negative boundary — "not runtime testing or sandboxing" — which rules out a plausible misuse. It offers no positive when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and names no alternative tool the agent should pick instead.

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