compile_living_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond those by stating 'Read-only', specifying the engine renderer, requiring an active project, and explicitly noting it 'cannot rewrite semantic state' — useful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The read-only caveat is front-loaded, followed by the action, prerequisite, and a safety constraint — every element earns its place.

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?

With no parameters, an existing output schema, and annotations already covering read-only, idempotent, and destructive behavior, the description supplies the remaining necessary context: the active-project requirement and the semantic-state guarantee. 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond what the empty schema already shows. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies here because no parameter guidance is needed.

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 ('Compile'), a specific resource ('Living Application Document'), and a mechanism ('engine renderer'), and opens with 'Read-only' to clarify scope. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compile_context_handoff and preview_round without needing to inspect schemas.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires an active project') and indicates the operation is read-only, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as compile_context_handoff or preview_round, nor does it state when not to use it.

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