build_compile_scripts

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully clarifies the output is parsed structured errors rather than a raw log dump, which is real added context. It does not disclose side effects of a non-read-only compile (artifact writes, project state changes, or prerequisites such as a prior build_generate_projects run), leaving a meaningful gap for a mutation-flagged tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the output characteristic follows immediately. Nothing in the description is filler.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description carries little burden and covers purpose plus the distinctive return-value character. The main omission is any indication of prerequisites or relation to the build pipeline siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Compiles game scripts") plus a scope qualifier ("headlessly"), so the agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like build_check_scripts or editor_compile, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With build_check_scripts, editor_compile, build_generate_projects, and build_game all present as siblings, an agent has no stated criterion for choosing this tool over those.

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