skill_compile_ide_companion_placeholder_manifest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is no-spend, does not call Tripo, and does not mutate Unreal, which clarifies its side-effect profile. It does not fully state whether it writes files or is purely computational, but the negative statements substantially demystify its behavior.

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 with five sentences: purpose, detailed outputs, exclusions, KB reference, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 gives a solid overview and the output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it leaves the two optional parameters unexplained (schema lacks descriptions too), and while the KB reference is helpful, it does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics. An agent would likely understand the core function but would be uncertain about placeholder_root and blocker_resolution.

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 only demonstrates the required parameter via an example ('session_plan=plan'), giving a minimal hint about its type. The optional parameters 'placeholder_root' and 'blocker_resolution' are not mentioned anywhere in the description, leaving their semantics completely undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compile a no-spend placeholder manifest for blocked generated assets.' It then details what the tool produces (placeholder assets, replacement mapping, creation tool steps, evidence requirements) and explicitly states what it does not do ('does not call Tripo or mutate Unreal'). This clearly differentiates it from generation and mutation tools.

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 provides a clear usage condition ('blocked generated assets') and an explicit non-goal ('does not call Tripo or mutate Unreal'), which tells the agent when not to use it. However, it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, so the 'vs alternatives' guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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