compile_gene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the CLI invocation and the local-directory prerequisite, but says nothing about side effects (artifacts written to disk), where they land, failure behavior for a missing Gene, or the meaning of 'Returns compilation output'. Partial coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, the prerequisite second, and the return noted last. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It omits artifact side effects, error modes, and any expansion of what the compilation output contains, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 five parameters including the lang enum and check flag are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the required gene_name precondition, which is a marginal gain over structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Compile') and resource ('a local Gene to WASM') plus the mechanism ('via the Rotifer CLI'), so an agent can distinguish it from run_gene, test_gene, and install_gene. It never explicitly names a sibling it is not, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It gives one clear precondition ('The Gene must exist in the local genes/ directory') but offers no guidance on when to reach for this versus test_gene, run_gene, or wrap_gene, nor when-not to use it. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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