kintsugi_compile_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the significant behavioral fact: this writes files into four specific locations in the repository. It omits overwrite semantics, whether directories are created, and error behavior on a missing source file – gaps that matter for a tool that mutates the workspace.

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?

One dense sentence with the input front-loaded before the outputs – no filler. It is terse to the point of being cryptic for a reader who does not already know what a "scar" is, but nothing is wasted.

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 side-effecting build tool with two undocumented parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It never says what the call returns (a success flag, a list of written paths) or how partial `targets` selections behave.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The four listed outputs loosely map to the default `targets` values, but nothing states that `targets` selects which artifacts to emit, and `workspace_root` is completely unexplained.

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?

A specific verb ("Compile") plus an explicit source artifact (`.kintsugi/scars.json`) and four named destinations makes the operation unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with `kintsugi_scan_code` or `kintsugi_record_failure`, but the build/codegen nature is naturally distinct from those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all – nothing says this runs after scars are recorded, or that it is the final materialization step in the workflow. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of what to do if `.kintsugi/scars.json` does not exist.

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