cint_eval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two things structured fields do not: the return/failure taxonomy (output, or a CINT-DIAG-1 diagnostic, or a CINT-FAULT-1 fault record) and an environment prerequisite (local cint on PATH or CINT_PATH). It stops short of covering execution risk, sandboxing, or time limits for what is effectively arbitrary code execution.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the outcome taxonomy, then the prerequisite — no filler. The diagnostic/fault identifiers are terse jargon, though they pair with the sibling cint_lookup_diagnostic, so the density is defensible.

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?

For a one-parameter evaluator with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what it takes, what it returns, what the failure records mean, and what the environment must provide. Output size, truncation, and runtime limits are unaddressed but are secondary for this tool shape.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines it fully — baseline 3. The description does add genuine semantic detail beyond "Complete .ci source code string" by specifying the accepted program shape (`void main() { ... }` or top-level statements), but that is a modest increment rather than compensating for any gap.

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 pair and resource (compile and run a cint .ci program) and names the command (`cint run`), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly separates itself from cint_check/cint_test by emphasizing execution, but never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool to reach for when it wants a program executed and its output returned. It never states when to prefer cint_check (static validation) or cint_test over running, nor does it give any exclusions. The prerequisite note about needing a local cint is helpful context but is not alternative-selection guidance.

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