recompile_deps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool force-recompiles dependencies (not the project) and emphasizes the mandatory args parameter. It does not mention side effects like clearing build caches or potential duration, but for a command wrapper this is acceptable. The 'MUST specify args' constraint is a behavioral trait beyond the mere schema required flag, adding some 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 two short sentences plus two labeled usage sections. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or 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 is sufficient. It covers the purpose, usage nuances, and explicitly names alternatives. It does not describe return values or failure behavior, but the tool acts as a wrapper around mix deps.compile, so the outcome is predictable. A 4 is warranted given no annotations or output schema to lean on.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter (args) thoroughly with examples and meaning ('Args passed to mix deps.compile'). Schema coverage is 100%. The description merely repeats that args must be specified, adding little over the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Force recompile Elixir dependencies (not the project itself).' The verb 'force recompile' plus the resource 'dependencies' and the scope exclusion 'not the project itself' precisely define the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives in the 'NOT FOR' section.

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 provides explicit WHEN TO USE guidance (local path dependency source changed, or to force-rebuild a specific dep) and NOT FOR guidance (project code, with alternatives recompile or reload_module). This clearly tells the agent when to select this tool versus its siblings.

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