compile_tolk

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the return values (Fift code, BoC base64, code hash) and automatic stdlib import resolution, which is useful. However, it omits details about error behavior, potential side effects, or limitations, leaving moderate transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the input format, entrypoint requirement, stdlib handling, and return values comprehensively. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or constraints, but the overall context is well-provided.

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?

All parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the sources map format and explicitly requiring the entrypoint file to be included in sources, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Compiles Tolk smart contract source code using @ton/tolk-js', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like check_tolk_syntax and get_compiler_version by focusing on the compilation action.

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 for compilation and provides some input expectations (sources map, entrypoint inclusion), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced in the description.

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