loom_compile

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: no execution, no file writes, ok=true/false return shapes, M-code diagnostics exactly as the CLI, and variable placeholder filling. This is comprehensive and adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It then covers safety, return details, and parameter behavior in a logical structure. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides a complete picture: operation, side-effect-free nature, return format, diagnostics behavior, and parameter semantics. It is fully adequate for the tool's complexity and leaves no significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the `variables` parameter as filling `{variable}` placeholders (CLI --var). `manifest_path` is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, though it is not directly described. Partial compensation, with the most ambiguous parameter addressed.

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 compiles an iamf-loom manifest (YAML/JSON) to a packaging plan. It uses a specific verb (compile), identifies the resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on plan generation and validation.

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 provides clear context: it is validate-only, executes nothing, and writes no files. This implies usage for planning/side-effect-free inspection, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like iamf_validate or loom_explain. A brief explicit alternative would make it a 5.

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