get_compile_result

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing what information is parsed. But it does not cover error handling, return format, or what happens if the log is malformed. The annotation already indicates it is read-only, so the description provides moderate additional 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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and output. It could be slightly improved by structuring as separate points, but it is efficient and contains no filler.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input source and parsed output fields. However, it does not explain the return structure or any pagination/formatting of results, leaving some gaps for the agent to understand what to expect from the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter 'log_file' is not described in the schema. The description only mentions 'editor log' but does not specify the expected format (path, content, file extension, etc.). This leaves ambiguity for the agent on how to provide the parameter value.

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 parses compiler errors/warnings from an editor log, specifying the extracted fields (file, line, column, CS-code, message) and the source commands (check_compile, build_scene, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that also work with compilation results.

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 mentions that the input is an editor log from specific commands, which gives implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like detect_errors_in_log or read_editor_log, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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