await_compile

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

Despite readOnlyHint annotation, description adds behavioral details: blocking nature, transparent handling of domain reload disconnects, and epoch-aware status fallback logic. These go beyond annotation and clarify runtime behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct info: purpose, usage, and behavioral nuances. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 single-param tool with no output schema, it covers return format ('errors or compile clean'), timeout behavior, and reliability features. Comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 defines only timeout with default 60 but no description. Description explains 'timeout=0 → immediate check, no loop,' adding meaningful semantics to the sole parameter. It doesn't specify units, but the key behavior is covered.

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?

Description opens with 'Block until Unity finishes compiling + reloading, then return compile errors.' This uses specific verb+resource and clearly states the output. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_compile_errors by emphasizing the waiting behavior.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after writing .cs files instead of sleep,' giving a clear when-to-use and an alternative. It also notes timeout=0 as an immediate-check option, further guiding usage.

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