module_compile

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

No annotations provided. The description states the action but omits behavioral details like side effects (e.g., files created, time taken), required environment (build tools), or failure modes. Without annotations, the description should compensate.

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 reasonably concise with a clear purpose statement and parameter explanations. However, the parameter list format is slightly verbose; could be more compact.

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 description explains the core function but omits details about output (e.g., success/failure messages) and required environment. Since an output schema exists, it partially compensates, but completeness could be improved.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by describing module_name as 'Name of the module directory under modules/' and source_path as 'Path to the OpenSIPS source tree root' with a default. This clarifies the parameters effectively despite 0% schema coverage.

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 the action ('Compile') and resource ('OpenSIPS module from source'), and explains it runs `make modules` for the specified module. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like module_add_mi_command or module_validate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., source code must be present), or typical use cases. The description only states the parameters without context.

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