compile_toolpath

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'NOMINAL' and 'pre-calibration' but discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or output format. The agent cannot infer safety or effects from this alone.

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 at one sentence, but it is slightly under-specified. It includes pen options inline but lacks structure like separate sections. It is not verbose, but could better front-load essential details.

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 simplicity (two params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits explanation of the essential 'signature_id' parameter and any prerequisites or workflow context, such as the proof stage. More context is needed for effective use.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It only lists possible pen values but does not explain the role of 'signature_id' or how 'pen' affects compilation. No additional semantics beyond the schema are provided.

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 the NOMINAL toolpath for pre-calibration proof, specifying the verb 'compile' and resource 'toolpath NOMINAL'. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'compile_calibrated' by noting pre-calibration, providing specific purpose and scope.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compile_calibrated. It only implies usage for proof and pre-calibration, but lacks clear when-not or context-based recommendations.

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