check_compile

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; description adds that it runs headless as a job and works even if code does not compile, which is useful. However, it does not explain if compilation produces project modifications or the job behavior (e.g., async nature).

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, using two sentences to convey primary action, context (headless job), follow-up step, and ideal use case. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 compilation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input (project path), behavior (headless, job), result retrieval (get_compile_result), and edge case (non-compiling code). It provides enough context for an agent to use it in automated loops.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains project_path implicitly by stating 'alle Skripte des Projekts', but does not explain the 'version' parameter (optional). No additional semantic guidance beyond what is in the schema.

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 'Kompiliert alle Skripte des Projekts headless' which specifies the verb (compiles), resource (all scripts), and mode (headless as a job). It distinguishes from sibling build tools like build_scene by focusing on scripts, and mentions a follow-up tool get_compile_result, aiding differentiation.

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 suggests ideal usage: 'Ideal für Schreiben→Prüfen→Auto-Fix-Schleifen' (write-check-auto-fix loops) and directs the user to get_compile_result for structured errors. It provides context for when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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