recompile_scripts

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, signaling a write operation. The description confirms it triggers recompilation, but does not elaborate on potential side effects like blocking, error messages, or changes to the project state. It adds minimal value beyond 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 a single, clear sentence that is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, e.g., by mentioning that recompilation may take time.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks important context such as the duration of recompilation, that it forces a full rebuild, or how logs are structured when returned.

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 100%, so parameters 'logsLimit' and 'returnWithLogs' are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning or context for these parameters, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Recompiles' and the resource 'all scripts in the Unity project', clearly identifying the tool's action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'execute_code' or 'execute_menu_item' by directly addressing script 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected outcomes, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., 'execute_menu_item') might be more appropriate for triggering compilation.

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