compile_manuscript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions the inclusion filter. It doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only vs. write operation (though 'compile' implies generation), what happens if outputPath exists, error conditions, performance characteristics, or what the tool returns. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 the core purpose, the second adds the critical constraint. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what it does and the key limitation) 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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, performance implications, or how it interacts with the document system. The description covers only the basic what, not the how or what-to-expect.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 manuscript') and resource ('to a PDF file'), with the important constraint 'Only includes documents marked "Include in Compile"' that distinguishes it from other compilation approaches. This is more specific than just restating the tool name.

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 when to use it (when you want a PDF with only included documents) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_compile_order or other compilation methods. No guidance is provided about when NOT to use this tool or what prerequisites exist.

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