alethia_compile

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it 'does not execute anything', returns compiled IR, per-line confidence scores (0-1), and warnings for unparsed lines. This goes beyond annotations by describing the exact output and failure indication.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core action and non-execution, the second lists the return values, and the third gives use cases. Every sentence earns its place with 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 simple compile-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains purpose, behavior, output format (IR, confidence, warnings), and use cases. It is self-contained and leaves no significant gaps.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter (instructions: 'Plain-English instructions to compile (does not execute).') with 100% coverage. The tool description paraphrases this as 'natural-language test instructions' but adds no new semantic detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description starts with a specific verb 'Compile' and defines the resource as 'natural-language test instructions to Alethia Action IR text'. It also explicitly states 'without executing anything', differentiating it from execution-focused sibling tools like alethia_tell.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'preview what tell() will run, debug coverage gaps, or generate reproducible IR scripts for CI pipelines.' This provides clear use cases and implies it should not be used for actual execution.

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