compiler_status

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it is informational only, returns a dict with specific fields, and handles unknown papers/compilers. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied. A score of 4 is appropriate as it adds sufficient context.

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 well-structured with a clear first line, usage guidelines, args, and returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence adds value. No 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 has 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains parameter formats, return structure, and behavioral constraints. It addresses edge cases like unknown papers. No gaps.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it specifies that 'paper_id' is a WG21 paper ID with example 'P2996', explains 'compiler' with key examples and default behavior when omitted. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 'Look up compiler implementation status for a C++26 paper' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'lookup_paper' and 'search' by focusing on compiler status, not general paper info or search.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it for classifying review diagnostics as bug-vs-compiler-lag, never for choosing which idiom to write' and 'the model must not gate recommendations on this', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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