compile_cpp

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: no execution occurs, outputs are bounded, source and virtual files are transmitted to a backend, and assembly differences are explicitly not performance measurements. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and limitations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every phrase adds value, including the caveat about assembly differences.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects and return types are handled by the schema. However, it does not provide sufficient guidance on parameter selection or configuration, leaving a gap in usability for complex compilation scenarios.

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 0% across 11 parameters. The description only hints at a few concepts (source bundle, diagnostics, assembly, optimization records), leaving other critical parameters like compiler, libraries, filters, and files unexplained. It fails to compensate adequately for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 compiles a C++ source bundle without executing it, and specifies the output types (bounded diagnostics, assembly, optimization records). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_cpp and analyze_cpp by focusing on pure compilation.

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 implies usage for compilation tasks and explicitly notes it does not execute code, but it does not name alternative tools for execution or analysis, nor does it provide clear when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion rules.

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