compile_beliefs

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

No annotations provided, so the description must shoulder behavioral disclosure. It mentions writing to the vault, but does not clarify if operations are idempotent, destructive, or require permissions.

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 fairly concise but includes a verbose list of frontmatter fields (claim_id, entity, etc.) that could be shortened or moved to output schema.

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?

The description covers main functionality and parameters, but omits output schema details, prerequisites, and side effects. Given the tool complexity, it is minimally adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the directory and max_files parameters, including defaults. However, it lacks format details (e.g., absolute vs relative path).

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 source code into belief artifacts, specifying file types, extracted entities, and the output format. This distinguishes it from siblings like compile_docs.

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 processing source files into beliefs but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like refresh_beliefs or verify_beliefs.

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