edgegate_compile_genie

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is asynchronous (returns a job_id to poll) and requires workspace admin access. However, it omits any side effects (e.g., resource consumption, persistence of the compile job) and does not clarify whether the operation is destructive or creates persistent artifacts. This is better than nothing but not fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase earns its place. It packs lane definitions, return value, and authorization requirement without redundancy. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema, but the description covers the key return behavior ('Returns a job_id to poll') and mentions the required admin scope. It explains the three compile lanes sufficiently. Minor gaps exist—such as explicitly stating that workspace_id and device_id are always required or pointing to a status-check sibling—but the core context is complete enough for a competent agent.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful value by labeling each selector as Lane A/B/C and explicitly stating 'EXACTLY one lane selector', which clarifies the mutual exclusivity that the schema alone does not convey. This is more than the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Submit a 3-lane genie compile') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by enumerating the three distinct lanes (hf_repo, onnx_artifact_ids, bundle_artifact_id). This is far more specific than a generic 'compile' and matches the unique purpose of this tool.

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 explicitly instructs the user to specify exactly one lane selector and names each option, giving clear context about required inputs. It also states a prerequisite (workspace admin access). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like edgegate_llm_compile or mention when NOT to use this tool, which prevents a 5.

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