compile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently describes the compilation process, all parameters with defaults, and the return structure including errors, warnings, log excerpt, and command executed. However, it does not mention any potential side effects like file system writes beyond log files.

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 relatively concise, with a header and a bullet-like list for arguments and return values. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the return structure could be better formatted for quick parsing.

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 (multiple parameters, structured return), the description is complete. It covers input parameters, defaults, and the full return structure including errors, warnings, log details, and command. No output schema exists, but the description compensates thoroughly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'source' as absolute path, 'include' as MQL root override with default, 'log_file' as explicit log path, and 'timeout_sec' as subprocess timeout with default 300. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 the verb 'Compile' and the resource '.mq4/.mq5/.mqh source via MetaEditor CLI'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'compile_and_deploy' which is a composite tool.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compile_and_deploy'. It implies usage for standalone compilation but lacks guidance on context or exclusions.

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