compile_project

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the tool briefly launches the built game and kills it immediately, the project's code runs, and it gracefully skips if the runtime is not installed.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently conveys purpose, behavioral notes, prerequisites, and platform constraints in a single paragraph.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, differentiation, behavioral transparency, prerequisites, warnings, and platform. No missing critical information.

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?

There is only one parameter (projectDir) with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly specifies that the tool compiles the project using GameMaker's real build tool (Igor) to catch real GML errors like duplicate function names and syntax errors, and explicitly distinguishes it from lint_project which only does structural checks.

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 states when to use this tool (for real errors not caught by lint_project) and provides important prerequisites (GameMaker runtime installed) and warnings (only compile trusted projects, Windows only).

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