compile_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by defining what 'fresh' and 'stale' mean, that compiled memory is SHA-stamped, and that authored memory is unaffected. This gives the agent a mental model of what the summary actually represents without needing to inspect the store.

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 core summary is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the explanatory second paragraph provides necessary conceptual context for interpreting the results. The 'Args' section is redundant with the schema, slightly inflating length, but overall the text is tight and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output semantics.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the meaning of fresheness/staleness, and the relationship to authored memory. The only notable gap is that 'code anchors' are not defined, though the context suggests they are locations in the codebase tied to compiled descriptions. Still, the conceptual model is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100% and the parameter description in the schema is identical to the 'Args' text in the tool description. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats it. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but there is no extra semantic value added.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Summarize compile mode' and enumerates exactly what the summary counts (compiled descriptions, code anchors, stale count). This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_list (lists all memory) and compile_stale (presumably acts on stale items) through the focus on status and freshness.

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 explains the conceptual difference between compiled and authored memory, which implies when the tool is relevant (checking build-validated memory health). However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of, say, memory_list or compile_stale, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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