compile_stale

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it defines the staleness condition (SHA != HEAD) and advises recompilation before trusting the output. This goes beyond the annotation's safety profile without contradicting it.

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 succinct and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds the critical implication and guidance, and the Args block is minimal. No filler or redundant phrases. It earns its place without waste.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so return format is not needed. The description covers what it does, why it matters, and how to use the parameter. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already provides full documentation for the single parameter 'project' (description: 'Restrict to a project. Defaults to MCP_PROJECT if set.'). The description's Args block repeats this verbatim, adding no new information. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('compiled descriptions') with a precise condition (SHA != HEAD). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling compile tools like compile_status (which likely shows build status) and compile_setup (which sets up compilation). The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 when to use the tool (to identify stale compiled descriptions) and provides follow-up guidance (recompile before trusting). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus compile_status or compile_setup. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion.

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