syntax_check

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the syntax-only compilation mode and return of diagnostics, which is transparent. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, clear sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly improved by including parameter descriptions, but as a concise statement it is effective.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, and with 2 parameters (1 required), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the source format, the meaning of timeout_sec, or the structure of diagnostics. For a simple tool, some additional context would help the agent.

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 provides no information about the parameters ('source' or 'timeout_sec'). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. This is a significant gap.

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 a source'), the specific mode ('syntax-only mode (`/s`)'), and the output ('return diagnostics'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compile' (full compilation) or 'lint_basic'.

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 use for syntax checking only but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'compile', 'format_check', 'lint_basic'). No exclusions or context are provided.

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