efficiency_report

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

Even with read-only annotations already present, the description adds important behavioral context: history stores numeric metrics only and never prompts, source code, response bodies, or file paths, and token savings are estimates rather than billing data. This gives an agent the privacy and accuracy caveats needed to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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?

It is two sentences with no wasted language, leading with what the tool reports and then immediately covering privacy and estimate caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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 reporting tool with full parameter documentation and reliable safety annotations, the description covers purpose, privacy guarantees, and estimate caveats. The main remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not explain the return structure or finalSummary output, though the schema partially mentions it.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain scope windows, formatting, history limits, and cost inputs in detail. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reporting ContextPro's persistent, auditable context-compression estimates by tool. It is clearly distinguishable from all sibling tools, which are code-search/indexing utilities rather than reporting tools.

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 purpose implies the usage context—auditing or reporting compression estimates—but the description does not explicitly say when to call it, when not to call it, or what alternatives exist. The schema adds a useful hint to call at task completion, but the description itself provides only implied guidance.

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