Await Compile

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals important behavioral traits: it blocks until compilation and reload finish, handles domain reload disconnects transparently, and provides a fallback mechanism based on sync_status. These are non-obvious behaviors that help the agent understand what to expect, without contradicting the annotation.

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 compact yet packed with essential information. It front-loads the primary purpose, then gives usage guidance, return format, edge cases, and internal behavior in just a few sentences. Every clause earns its place, with no wasted words.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return value ('errors or 'compile clean (Xs)''), the blocking nature, domain reload handling, timeout behavior, and fallback logic. The agent has enough context to use it correctly in various situations.

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 schema already provides a baseline (100% coverage) for the 'timeout' parameter, but the description adds valuable semantics: 'timeout=0 → immediate check, no loop' clarifies the effect of a zero value, which is not in the schema. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline.

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 tool's function: 'Block until Unity finishes compiling + reloading, then return compile errors.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_compile_errors by focusing on the waiting/blocking behavior and returning compile status. The phrase 'Use after writing .cs files instead of sleep' further clarifies its unique role.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use after writing .cs files instead of sleep.' It also explains edge-case usage with 'timeout=0 → immediate check, no loop' and mentions fallback behavior ('falls back to compile_status'), giving clear context on when and how to invoke the tool. This effectively differentiates it from alternatives.

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