compile_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context about the behavioral semantics of compile mode (fresh vs stale, trustworthiness) and clarifies that authored memory is unaffected, which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clarifying paragraph and an Args section. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality and semantics of the result (counts of compiled, code anchors, stale). It leaves no critical gaps, though it could optionally detail the output structure further.

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 single parameter 'project' is fully described in both the schema and the description's Args section with identical wording. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'Summarize compile mode: how many compiled descriptions, code anchors, and how many are stale.' The verb 'summarize' is specific, and the resource 'compile mode' is clear. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compile_setup' (setup) and 'compile_stale' (list stale).

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 provides context about fresh vs stale and mentions that authored memory is unaffected, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compile_stale). No exclusions or comparative guidance are given.

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