compile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only reveals that compilation doesn't upload, but omits other behaviors such as potential core installation, build artifact creation, or whether it can fail. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key distinction, with no redundant information.

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 rich schema and the tool's straightforward nature, the description covers the main use case and distinguishes from upload. It doesn't mention prerequisites like core installs, but the schema's parameter descriptions fill in some gaps. Overall, adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, and the description adds specific FQBN examples (arduino:avr:uno and arduino:mbed_portenta:envie_m7) that go beyond the generic schema example. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compile' and resource 'sketch for a board FQBN', and explicitly states 'without uploading,' which distinguishes it from the sibling 'upload' tool. This clearly defines the tool's function.

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?

It provides concrete FQBN mappings for common boards, indicating when to use those values. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'upload' or state when to prefer compilation over uploading, so it has clear context but no formal exclusions.

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