compile_preflight

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

The description discloses return values (OK preflight (ms) / ERR preflight + diagnostics / [ROSLYN UNAVAILABLE]), the non-mutating nature (WITHOUT writing/recompiling), and the Roslyn dependency. These details go beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and provide useful behavioral context.

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 sentences long yet packs purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return types. Every clause provides value, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, and what return outcomes to expect. It is self-sufficient and complete.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by defining both parameters: 'file_path: Assets-relative' and 'new_content: full file'. This adds critical meaning that the schema lacks.

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?

States it validates C# without writing/recompiling using Roslyn, clearly distinguishing it from full compilation tools. The phrase 'Use before writing .cs' establishes it as a preflight check, and the speed comparison further differentiates it from recompilation.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Use before writing .cs' and contrasts with '30s recompile' to indicate when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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