lsl_compile_code

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description stays consistent while adding real context an agent would not otherwise have: the compilers are pre-configured and hash-pinned, and submitted code is never executed. It stops short of describing failure modes or which compilers are configured.

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?

Two tight clauses with the core action and the key safety constraint front-loaded; no filler. Slightly telegraphic — the 'Separate from lexical checks' fragment is clipped enough that it reads as a note rather than guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a single-parameter operation. Still missing: what a compile failure looks like versus a transport error, and whether the language is implicitly LSL given the sibling set.

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% for the single 'code' parameter, but the parameter is self-describing and the description adds the meaningful nuance that the payload is compiled, not executed. No guidance on format, language version, or the 131072 max length — though those are largely schema-level concerns.

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 and resource ('Run configured, hash-pinned local compilers') and scopes the behavior negatively ('never execute submitted scripts'). It gestures at sibling differentiation with 'Separate from lexical checks' (i.e., lsl_check_code) but never names the sibling, so the distinction requires inference from the prefix alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: compile rather than lint, and do not expect submitted scripts to be executed. There is no explicit 'use this when you need to build/validate compilation' phrasing and no exclusions beyond the lexical-check contrast.

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