Get Compile Errors

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description adds valuable context by noting that errors persist across Console.Clear() and that they are structured/typed. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand reliability and data format, though it doesn't detail edge cases like whether a compile is triggered.

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 short sentences deliver all essential information: what is returned, the format, and a key behavioral distinction. No filler or redundant content; every word adds value.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the content, format, and persistence. However, it is slightly ambiguous whether the tool triggers a compilation or merely returns the latest available errors. Given sibling names like compile_preflight, this could matter, so completeness is high but not perfect.

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 the baseline is 4 per rubric. There is no schema information to augment, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 retrieves compilation errors with file:line:column notation. This is a specific verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from console-related tools like get_console by emphasizing structured, typed output.

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 implies usage for obtaining compile errors in a persistent structured format ('Not lost on Console.Clear()'), but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over sibling tools like compile_preflight, await_compile, or get_console. No alternatives are named, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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