Compile check

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two important behavioral traits: Excel is made visible during the check, and a hidden instance would misreport a rejection as a pass. This explains a non-obvious failure mode and gives the agent essential context for interpreting 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core function, then platform constraint, then sibling guidance, then the visibility caveat. Every sentence contributes useful, non-redundant information and no filler is present.

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 two fully documented parameters, a rich schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description adds the remaining context an agent needs: platform limitation, when to choose it versus the analyzer, and the visible-Excel behavior. Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 file_path and timeout. The description mentions compiling 'a file's project' but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: asks the real VBA editor to compile a file's project and reports whether it accepted it. It also distinguishes itself from xlide_analyze, naming the compiler's verdict versus a static analyzer's, so an agent can tell it apart from a closely related sibling.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: run xlide_analyze first because it is free and needs no Office, and use this tool when the last word matters. It also states a hard exclusion, Windows only, clarifying when the tool cannot be used.

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