compile_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does more than state the operation: it reveals that leaks surface as a warning with a successful exit code and that the tool returns the escape coordinate. It does not explicitly mention filesystem side effects like generated .bsp or log cleanup, but the schema's keep_logs parameter partially covers that.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the default behavior and the most important edge case (leaks).

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 an 8-parameter build tool with no output schema, the description gives useful defaults and the leak caveat, but leaves the return shape vague ('report what the compiler said') and does not state prerequisites or side effects such as writing compiled artifacts. This is adequate with notable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the stages default and the notion of a full build, but it does not add meaning for map_path, *_args, tools_dir, or timeout_seconds beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Compile a .map with ericw-tools and report what the compiler said.' This identifies the tool's job precisely and, by naming ericw-tools, sets it apart from sibling compile_shogo_map. The leak-detection sentence further clarifies the tool's special return value.

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 gives clear context for normal use ('Runs qbsp by default; pass stages for a full build') and makes it clear that stages control which tools run. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as render_preview or compile_shogo_map, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement.

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