compile_beliefs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It outlines the workflow: scanning directories, extracting entities, resolving dependencies, and writing artifacts to the vault. This gives the agent a clear understanding of the tool's behavior and side effects.

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 well-structured, with a clear initial statement followed by bullet points for arguments. It avoids unnecessary details while covering essential functionality.

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 complexity of the tool (scanning, extracting, resolving dependencies, writing artifacts), the description covers the main steps and output format (belief artifacts with frontmatter). The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail return values. However, it could mention potential limitations or error conditions.

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?

Despite the schema_coverage being 0%, the description includes an explicit 'Args' section that explains both parameters: 'directory: Path to scan. Defaults to the project root.' and 'max_files: Maximum files to process (default: 200).' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's defaults.

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's purpose: 'Compile source code into belief artifacts (Truth → Belief pipeline).' It specifies the types of source files, what it extracts, and the output. This is distinct from siblings like compile_docs, which likely handles documentation.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although it explains what the tool does, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools to consider instead. With many related tools, this diminishes usability.

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