get_compile_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that state=completed signals job completion and that result.status determines compilation success, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by a crucial clarification about state vs. result.status. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. It covers the key behavioral distinction between job state and compilation result. The only gap is the lack of explanation for the jobId parameter, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter-level descriptions exist. The schema provides type, format, and pattern for jobId, but the description does not mention jobId at all, nor does it explain where to obtain the job ID (e.g., from a compile_project response). With only one parameter, the name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 (Get) and resource (compilation job state, PDF/log artifact URIs, actual compile status), and distinguishes job state from result.status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compile_project or get_session_status, which would clarify its role further.

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 usage is implied: it retrieves the result of a compilation job. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternative tools named. An agent can infer the context but is left to rely on the tool name and description alone.

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