Setup DI Compile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('compile') but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it's a read-only operation, modifies files, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like caching changes. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with potential system impacts.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic purpose but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'compile' does operationally, potential outputs, or integration with sibling tools, which is important for a setup-related command in a development environment.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description correctly omits parameter information, earning a high score for not adding unnecessary content, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required' which could slightly improve clarity.

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 ('compile') and resource ('Magento 2 dependency injection configuration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-di-preferences' or 'setup-upgrade', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as during development, deployment, or troubleshooting scenarios. There's no mention of prerequisites, related tools, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

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