compile_setup

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

The description explicitly states the tool 'adds a pre-commit hook' to the repository, which is a mutation. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, implying no state changes. This is a direct contradiction, making the behavioral transparency unreliable. The description adds useful context (safe no-op, stdlib-only) but the contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands on the hook details, safety, and usage. Each sentence contributes value, and the structure is logical. It is slightly long but not bloated, earning a 4.

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 complexity of a setup tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, the hook behavior, the no-op safety, the run-once instruction, and the parameter. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. It is complete except for the annotation contradiction, which is a separate issue.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the tool matches the schema exactly. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without enhancing semantics.

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 states a specific action ('Set up compile mode') on a specific resource ('current git repo') and explains what compile mode does (adds a pre-commit hook). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like compile_status and compile_stale, which check status and stale memory rather than performing setup.

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?

It gives clear context: 'Run this once per repo' and 'Ask me "set up compile mode" anytime.' It implies this is the setup tool among the compile_* family, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it. Slight room for improvement in naming exclusions, but overall guidance is present.

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