skill_compile_ide_companion_blocker_resolution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the tool does not call Tripo or mutate Unreal, and 'compile' implies a non-destructive planning operation. The description clarifies that it converts blockers into actions and policies, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether it reads or writes any state, or if there are any side effects beyond compilation. The explicit negative statements add significant transparency.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, a sentence on conversions, a boundary note, a KB reference, and an example. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, though the KB reference and example add useful context without bloat.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and boundaries, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, the input parameter semantics are incomplete, and the tool's role within the larger IDE companion workflow is only implicit. The KB reference provides external context but is not a substitute for inline documentation of all parameters. For a tool with 5 optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is a notable gap.

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 schema has zero description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only mentions session_plan and companion_status in the example, leaving dashboard, readiness_report, and preferred_strategy unexplained. Without parameter-level meaning, an agent cannot reliably know what values to supply for the undocumented parameters, especially since all are optional and have defaults.

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 specific verb-resource pair ('Compile no-spend resolution choices for IDE companion blockers') and lists concrete outputs (unblock actions, fallback paths, placeholder policy, bridge-offline policy, next MCP actions). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly disclaiming Tripo calls and Unreal mutation, making its scope clear.

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 usage in the IDE companion blocker resolution context and provides an example call, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like skill_compile_ide_companion_status or skill_compile_ide_companion_placeholder_manifest. The negative constraints ('does not call Tripo or mutate Unreal') hint at boundaries but do not give direct alternative selection guidance.

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