compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses return shape (verdict, errors with file/line and suggestions), an important limitation (PDF is not returned to avoid context flood), and the BLOCKED verdict's irreversibility. This goes well beyond basic semantics.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/result, critical exclusion (PDF), and verdict handling. No redundancy, front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers return format, failure modes (BLOCKED), and an alternative tool (get_pdf). This gives the agent sufficient context to use and interpret the tool's response.

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 coverage is 50%; timeoutSec and rootResourcePath are already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the remaining parameters (compiler enum, projectId) are self-explanatory in context. It neither clarifies nor harms.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compile') and resource ('the project'), and clearly states the return type ('structured diagnostics'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pdf (which returns the PDF bytes) and get_log.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use: 'Does NOT return the PDF itself — use get_pdf if you need the bytes.' Also instructs to 'Check verdict first: if it says BLOCKED, the server environment is at fault and retrying will not help,' which clarifies a key usage nuance.

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