requirements_compile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether compilation persists to a project, overwrites existing capabilities, requires authentication, or what it returns; only a high-level transformation is described.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to stating the core transformation. The size is appropriate for conveying the tool's essential purpose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four required parameters, the description is insufficient for confident invocation. It omits return behavior, side effects, error modes, and how projectId or capabilities interact.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of capabilities and acceptance criteria echoes schema fields but adds no syntax, constraints, or formatting beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Compiles') and the transformation from human-level product specifications to structured engineering capabilities and acceptance criteria. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like architecture_generate or task_create, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools are provided. An agent cannot infer whether this should be called before architecture_generate or task_create, nor what inputs are required beyond the schema.

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