compile_calibrated

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'recompiles' with measured calibration, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether it modifies original data, requires specific calibration state, or has destructive potential). The mechanism of calibration application is unexplained.

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, short sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous text. It is front-loaded and efficient, but its conciseness comes at the cost of omitted details about parameters and behavior.

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's complexity (3 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what 'CALIBRATED' means, how the toolpath is modified, or what the output format is. The user would need external knowledge to effectively use the tool.

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?

The input schema has three required parameters (pen, paper, signature_id) with zero description coverage. The tool description provides no explanation of these parameters, their purpose, format, or constraints. The parameter semantics are entirely dependent on the schema titles, which are minimal.

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 states 'Recompila o toolpath com a calibração MEDIDA', clearly indicating the tool recompiles a toolpath with measured calibration. It references related tools (test_plot, lock) and the output state 'CALIBRATED', distinguishing it from a non-calibrated compile. However, it could be more explicit about the differentiation from sibling compile_toolpath.

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 via 'é o que test_plot/lock usam', suggesting that this tool is used when building calibrated toolpaths for those operations. It provides context but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools (e.g., compile_toolpath). The guidance is inferred, not direct.

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