ik_compiler_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the tool's content and intended use, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only reference or describe the response format. The reference nature is implied by its name and wording, but not fully disclosed.

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 a single information-dense sentence followed by a one-sentence usage directive. Every listed topic adds specificity, and the structure is efficient 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 complexity and the absence of annotations/output schema, the description covers the key areas (lexing, IR, register allocation, ABI, etc.) and provides a clear invocation context. Including '--emit ir' adds practical depth, making it sufficiently complete for the agent to select the tool correctly.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema shows an empty object, and schema coverage is effectively 100%; the baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 identifies the tool as a deep reference for ik8b compiler internals and names specific subtopics (pipeline, SSA IR, register allocation, ABI, ISR codegen, fixed-point lowering, intrinsics, optimization). The verb 'reference' and the scope distinguish it from sibling reference tools like ik_grammar or ik_intrinsics.

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 sentence 'Use this to reason about the generated code' provides a clear use case. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the compiler-internals focus implies when to prefer this over more general references.

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