Validate source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with "without opening or changing a document", so there is no contradiction. It adds genuine value by disclosing the outputs (diagnostics, metrics, review score) and implying a compile step that can surface errors, though it says nothing about cost, latency, or failure behavior.

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 the action first and the non-mutating guarantee plus outputs after the colon. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers action, safety, and a summary of returned artifacts. The remaining gap is the nature of the source input, which is left entirely to the schema that documents nothing.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it only implies that source is ArchScript code, without stating whether it is inline text, a path, or a fragment, nor any size or encoding expectations.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Compiles ArchScript source") and scopes it with "without opening or changing a document", which separates it from siblings like set_document_source or edit_document. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase "without opening or changing a document" implies the right context (checking source before applying it), but no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative is given. The agent must infer that set_document_source is the mutation counterpart.

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