skill_compile_ide_companion_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does useful work: 'no-spend' discloses that the operation does not consume generation credits, and 'Returns a full orchestration plan' indicates a non-executing, planning-only behavior. It could be even clearer about whether it modifies project state, but for a plan compiler the framing strongly implies no mutation.

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 tight, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: the deliverable list, the KB pointer, and a concrete example. Nothing is wasted, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately readable.

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 complex orchestration tool, the description covers the output scope well and provides a KB reference and example. However, it lacks parameter-level guidance and does not position the tool among the sibling skill_compile_ide_companion_* tools, leaving context gaps around when and with what inputs it should be invoked.

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, but it only clarifies project_brief and mechanic_brief via the example. content_path, session_name, and include_generated_assets are left to their names and defaults, with no explanation of how they shape the generated plan. This is a clear gap for an agent choosing parameter values.

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 IDE companion session plan for a solo Unreal developer.' It clearly states what the tool produces and enumerates the plan's coverage. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the many skill_compile_ide_companion_* sibling tools, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skill_compile_ide_companion_status, skill_compile_ide_companion_work_order, or skill_compile_ide_companion_resume_session. It provides an example but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer when this is the appropriate tool among a large sibling family.

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