proj_get_compile_freshness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it explains that a dirty doc means the netlist does NOT reflect what the user is looking at, and that compile_age_ms/ttl_ms/cached describe cache state. It never explicitly states that the call is read-only and has no side effects, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

It is front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the usage trigger, then the return shape. The Returns block partly duplicates the output schema, but naming the fields (compile_age_ms, dirty_docs[], ttl_ms) is a modest aid and does not bloat the text excessively.

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 trivial zero-arg, read-only probe with an output schema already defined, the description covers purpose, trigger, and interpretation of the key fields. Only the explicit read-only/no-side-effect statement is missing, and the output schema covers the return contract.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: reporting the age of the cached netlist and which docs are dirty. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like proj_compile, proj_force_recompile, or proj_get_connectivity, since it is purely a staleness probe rather than a compile or query of connectivity.

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 a concrete trigger condition: use it when you are about to disagree with the user about connectivity, to check whether the netlist is stale or editors have unsaved changes. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative (e.g. proj_force_recompile), which keeps it short of a 5.

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