Build a Micro

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the key safety profile is covered. The description adds the important behavioral qualifier that this operation compiles and validates but does not deploy, which goes beyond the annotations and helps agents avoid expecting deployment side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and an important exclusion while remaining immediately scannable.

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?

The tool has only one optional parameter, a 100% documented schema, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotence and destructiveness. The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and key non-behavior, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, with the single 'path' parameter fully described in the input schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already documents the parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Compile and validate') and a specific resource ('the conventional Micro project'), and explicitly clarifies that it does not deploy. This clearly distinguishes it from the many deployment-related sibling tools such as micro_deploy.

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 phrase 'without deploying it' gives an explicit exclusion that helps an agent understand when this tool is appropriate rather than micro_deploy. It does not name alternative tools or state exact conditions, but the context is clear enough for tool selection.

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