get_compile_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves a list from a specific folder and hints at compilation preview, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential operational implications.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief usage hint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 provides basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or error conditions. It's minimally adequate for a simple read operation but could be more complete to help an agent fully understand how to use it correctly in various scenarios.

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 fully documents the single optional parameter 'stopAtTitle'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'list of documents in compile order from the Draft/Manuscript folder', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_structure' or 'compile_manuscript', which might also relate to document organization or compilation processes.

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 context by stating it's 'Useful for seeing what will be included in a compile', which suggests it should be used for previewing compilation order. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compile_manuscript' (which might perform the actual compilation) or 'get_structure' (which might show a different view).

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