skill_compile_ide_companion_work_order

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety/behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool 'emits' a structured work order, implying a non-mutating compile operation, and lists the output categories. However, it never explicitly states whether it is read-only, whether it modifies any session state, or what side effects (e.g., status refresh) it may cause.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and output list, followed by a useful KB reference and a concrete example. The only minor waste is the example's redundant restatement of the tool name, but it still adds call-shape value.

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 output schema exists and covers return shape, so the description need not explain return values. Yet the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and the prose leaves target_phase and readiness_report semantically undefined, and lacks usage/exclusion guidance relative to sibling compile tools. This is insufficient for a correct first call without external KB lookup.

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 prose must compensate, but it only loosely maps parameters: 'session plan' and 'optional status/readiness context' plus an example using session_plan and companion_status. The target_phase parameter is not mentioned at all, and no types or structures are given for session_plan, companion_status, or readiness_report.

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 names a specific action ('Compile the next safe work order for an IDE companion session') and enumerates the emitted artifacts (phase, prerequisites, blockers, tool steps, evidence, acceptance criteria, stop conditions, status refresh). This makes the tool's function clear even though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling skill_compile_ide_companion_* 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 gives input context ('Accepts a session plan plus optional status/readiness context') but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as skill_compile_ide_companion_dashboard, skill_compile_ide_companion_session, or skill_compile_ide_companion_status. There are no when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements or alternative names.

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