compile_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that beliefs are created with confidence 0.80 and that it processes a default of up to 50 files. However, it does not mention whether the tool overwrites existing beliefs, is idempotent, or any side effects on the vault. Overall good but could be more explicit about behavioral traits.

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: one sentence for the main purpose, followed by a paragraph with additional context and parameter details. No extraneous words or redundancy. Each sentence adds value.

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 has an output schema and only two parameters, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's function. It explains the input (doc files), the confidence level, and parameter defaults. However, it could be more complete by explaining what 'belief artifacts' are and how they affect the vault state.

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. The description lists the 'directory' and 'max_files' parameters with their defaults and brief explanations (directory defaults to project root, max_files defaults to 50). However, it does not add deeper semantics like acceptable file types, error handling, or how the directory path is resolved. This is minimal added value over the schema 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 markdown documentation files into belief artifacts.' It specifies the action (compiling), resource (markdown doc files), and output (belief artifacts with confidence 0.80). It distinguishes from siblings like compile_beliefs by focusing on documentation files only.

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 explains the tool ingests project-level docs like README.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, etc., into the vault. It provides clear context for when to use it (for project documentation), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. There is no exclusion or comparison to siblings.

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