skill_compile_ide_companion_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It explicitly says it 'does not call Tripo or mutate Unreal' and characterizes the operation as reading the ledger and returning payloads, which signals a non-destructive read-oriented tool. It does not discuss prerequisites or file expectations, but the major side-effect warnings are present.

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 short, front-loaded, and includes a KB pointer and a call example with a named parameter. It earns its length, though the structure could have integrated parameter explanations for the two opaque inputs.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return contract is covered. However, the definition remains incomplete for a 5-optional-parameter tool: it omits current_blockers/readiness_report semantics, does not state which sibling compilers it replaces or precedes, and leaves usage preconditions implicit.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It only maps 'local ledger' and 'provided session plan' to ledger_path/session_plan and demonstrates session_name by example; current_blockers and readiness_report are left completely unexplained, with no guidance on how the parameters interact.

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 opening sentence names a specific action ('Compile a display-ready dashboard packet') and a specific target ('for the IDE companion'), and the second sentence enumerates the returned card types. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with sibling IDE-companion compile tools such as session, status, or work_order.

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 the trigger: a caller needs a consolidated dashboard packet from a ledger or session plan. It never states when to prefer this tool over sibling compilers or when to pass current_blockers/readiness_report, so the guidance is contextual rather than prescriptive.

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