compile_teal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('compile') but doesn't describe what happens during compilation (e.g., validation, optimization), error handling, output format (though no output schema exists), or side effects (e.g., network calls). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information 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?

Given the complexity of compilation (a non-trivial operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., compiled bytecode, errors), behavioral traits (e.g., network dependency for 'network' parameter), or how 'itemsPerPage' relates to compilation. For a tool with these gaps, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (source, network, itemsPerPage). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as TEAL version support or format details for 'source'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 'Compile TEAL source code' clearly states the verb ('compile') and resource ('TEAL source code'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what compilation produces (e.g., bytecode, program ID) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'disassemble_teal' or transaction creation tools, leaving the scope somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing TEAL source), typical use cases (e.g., before deploying a smart contract), or relationships with sibling tools like 'disassemble_teal' (reverse operation) or transaction tools that might use compiled output.

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