ue_live_compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (only works on function body changes) and explains the parameter behavior. However, it omits details like what happens on compilation failure or if the editor is not running, which would enhance 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 concise (approximately 6 lines), front-loaded with the core benefit and limitation, and includes a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers main behavior, limitations, and parameter semantics. It could mention the return value more explicitly, but it is sufficient for effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clearly defines max_wait_seconds: how long to wait before returning 'in corso' while compilation continues, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type and default.

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 clearly states the tool recompiles C++ without closing the editor via Live Coding. It specifies the scope (function body changes only) and distinguishes it from ue_build_start, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (for fast iteration on function body changes) and when not to (for structural changes requiring ue_build_start with editor closed), providing clear context and an alternative.

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