get_effective_compiler_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the core behavior (resolving inheritance chain and returning merged options, including from node_modules/monorepo), but does not discuss side effects, error handling, or return format. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence about eliminating hallucinations is slightly redundant but adds value by specifying which options are trustworthy. Overall concise and well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, and no annotations. The description gives a high-level outcome but doesn't specify the return shape, error conditions, or how includeRaw affects output beyond schema. Sufficient for a straightforward tool but could be more complete given lack of output schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so description doesn't need to compensate. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states it resolves the full tsconfig.json inheritance chain and returns the final merged compiler options. It specifies the resource (tsconfig inheritance) and the output (final options), distinguishing it from sibling tools like resolve_module_alias or analyze_project_references.

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?

It implies usage when accurate effective compiler options are needed, highlighting that it eliminates hallucinations about strict mode, moduleResolution, paths, and target. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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