Compile the document for diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses safety ('never modifies the document'), the two possible compile backends (loopback service or browser live preview), and the output shape (errors/warnings + page count). This is strong disclosure beyond the schema.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it does, how it does it, and when to invoke it. Front-loaded with the core action and result, with the usage guidance placed last as a natural follow-up.

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?

The description is complete for a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool. It tells the agent the result format, the safety guarantee, the backend selection mechanism, and the precise workflow placement relative to siblings. No critical information is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics and instead focuses on what the tool does and returns. Nothing is missing here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Type-checks') with a clear resource ('the shared project') and states what it returns ('diagnostics (errors/warnings + page count)'). It also clarifies a key boundary ('never modifies the document'), distinguishing it from the propose_* sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to call the tool: 'Call this after propose_files/propose_edit to confirm the change set type-checks before asking the human to Accept.' This is clear context, though it does not spell out when not to use it or name direct alternatives.

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