edict-lang

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (base64 string) and cross-module import resolution, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or any side effects (e.g., whether compilation caches results).

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and output, the second clarifies input variants. Every word earns its place, and key information (base64 output, multi-module support) 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying the return format (base64 string) and input semantics. However, for a compilation tool with potential complexity (multi-module resolution), it could benefit from mentioning error conditions or validation prerequisites.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic difference between 'ast' (single module) and 'modules' (multi-module array), and clarifies that cross-module imports are resolved automatically. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 specific action ('compile'), the resource ('Edict AST'), and the output ('WebAssembly module'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying compilation vs validation (edict_check), deployment (edict_deploy), or execution (edict_run). The mention of base64 encoding further clarifies the output format.

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 usage when you have an Edict AST ready for compilation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like edict_check (validation) or edict_deploy (deployment). It mentions multi-module support but doesn't contrast with single-module scenarios or explain prerequisites.

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