slua_compile_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful behavior by promising only pinned local compilers are used and that submitted scripts are never executed. It does not mention timeouts, resource limits, or how compiler failures surface, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short clauses with zero padding; the core action comes first and the sibling differentiation follows immediately. Every word carries information.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description needs only purpose and safety semantics, which it supplies. It stops short of clarifying the language family (slua vs lsl siblings) or error/diagnostic behavior, which would fully close the gap for a compiler tool.

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% and the single parameter 'code' is undocumented beyond its type and 131072 max length. The description says nothing about the expected source language, encoding, or size limits, though the single obvious 'code' parameter needs little explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool whose schema does the rest minimally.

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 — running configured, hash-pinned local compilers — and explicitly separates itself from the lexical-check siblings ('Separate from lexical checks'). An agent can tell this apart from lsl_check_code/slua_check_code without opening any schema.

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?

'Separate from lexical checks' gives a clear condition for choosing this tool over the check_code siblings, but the sibling is not named and there is no guidance on when compilation is appropriate versus reference/guidance lookups in the same family. Clear context, no explicit exclusion list.

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