latexmk_draft_compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose key behavioral traits: it is fast, single-pass, does not run bibliography, and surfaces errors. It does not mention side effects like file generation or cleanup, but for a compile tool the primary behavior is well covered.

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 action, and every clause earns its place ('fast', 'single-pass', 'without running multiple passes or bibliography', 'Good for syntax/error checking'). There is no wasted wording.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 4 parameters and a oneOf constraint, but the schema already documents the input options well. The description adds the key contextual distinction of draft vs. full compile, which is critical given the sibling tools. It does not explain the input modes or engine defaults, but the schema covers those, so overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it doesn't explain the oneOf requirement, engine choices, or the difference between tex_content and file_path. The schema descriptions already cover most parameter meaning, so no extra value is added.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run' with a specific resource 'fast single-pass draft compile', and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'single-pass' and 'without running multiple passes or bibliography'. It also states its purpose ('quickly surface errors', 'syntax/error checking'), making it unique among the listed compile-related tools.

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 for when to use the tool: during editing for syntax/error checking, and it explicitly says it does not run multiple passes or bibliography, implying a lighter alternative. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly or state when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' guidance.

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