Compress source files into AST signature skeletons, preserving types, interfaces, and docstrings while folding function bodies for AI context.
Compress a source file into an AST signature skeleton (preserving types, interfaces, signatures, and docstrings while folding function bodies).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Path to the source code file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: what is preserved (types, interfaces, signatures, docstrings) versus what is discarded (function bodies). It lacks details on error behavior, file-type limits, or any side effects, keeping it short of 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?
A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical breakdown is slightly dense but every clause carries meaning, so it is close to optimal.
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 one-parameter read-style transform with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return shape ('AST signature skeleton' with named preserved elements), which is exactly what an agent needs since no output schema exists. Minor gaps around error cases and unsupported file types remain.
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?
There is one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents file_path. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?
Specific verb ('Compress') plus resource ('a source file') plus the output artifact ('AST signature skeleton'). An agent immediately knows this transforms a file into a structural summary. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like ctxray_pack or ctxray_repo_map, which keeps it from a 5.
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 only implied: the notion of 'folding function bodies' while keeping signatures signals the context-reduction scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.