radiant_compile_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema: the operation is offline, depends on an external binary, and produces ABI/ASM/hex artifacts. It could go further by noting failure modes for invalid source or missing compiler, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the verb, resource, and outputs; the second covers offline behavior and the external dependency. Everything earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter tool with one required param and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it does, what it needs (rxdc compiler), and what it returns. It lacks an explicit description of the return JSON shape or error behavior, but the provided details are sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call it correctly.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'ABI, ASM bytecode, and hex' loosely reinforces the format enum but adds no meaning beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already state.

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 names the specific verb (Compile), the resource (RadiantScript .cash/.rxd source code), and the concrete outputs (ABI, ASM bytecode, hex). It is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which are chain queries, wallet operations, and transaction builders, so an agent can tell this is the compile/build tool at a glance.

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 clear context: it works offline and requires the rxdc compiler binary, including how to locate it via RXDC_PATH or a sibling repository. There are no similar sibling tools to exclude, so explicit when-not-to-use guidance isn't necessary; the prerequisites serve as the usage gate.

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