recompile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the operation ('Recompile the entire project'), the context ('from within the running BEAM'), and the return value ('errors/warnings'). It adds that it is equivalent to 'mix compile'. It could go further by noting potential side effects like module reloading, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 and well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary, followed by succinct 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT FOR' sections. Every sentence earns its place, zero waste.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, when not to, and what it returns. It also draws clear boundaries with sibling tools. No gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description stays focused on behavior and usage.

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's purpose: 'Recompile the entire project from within the running BEAM.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming reload_module and recompile_deps as alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit WHEN TO USE and NOT FOR sections, naming specific alternatives (reload_module for single file changes, recompile_deps for dependencies). This gives clear guidance on when to select this tool over siblings.

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