bp_compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of saving after successful compile, the default behavior of save_after_compile, and what the agent should do when had_errors is True. It could add more about failure modes or permissions, but for a compile/diagnostic tool the disclosed behavior is solid.

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 front-loaded with the core action and timing, then uses structured bullets for outputs and args. It is slightly redundant in repeating 'Returns:' twice and re-listing fields, but the overall organization is easy to scan and every major section earns its place.

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 two-parameter compile tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, the timing, the exact output fields, the side-effect behavior, the KB reference, and a realistic example. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, but the Args section explains both parameters meaningfully: blueprint_name as the asset name and save_after_compile as an optional save-after-successful-compile flag with its default. The example reinforces the expected blueprint_name format.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Compile'), a specific resource ('a Blueprint'), and a differentiated outcome ('return structured errors/warnings'). The detailed field list (had_errors, had_warnings, compile_messages) makes clear this is the diagnostic-returning compile tool rather than the generic compile_blueprint sibling.

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 gives explicit timing: 'Always run this after finishing a set of graph edits.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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