compress

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: side effects (mutates state additively, creates new facts, original intact), authentication requirements (X-Tenant-ID header, FACT_WRITE permission), rate limiting, and error types (VALIDATION_ERROR). This is exhaustive and contradictory to no 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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds critical information (purpose, effects, auth/errors). No wasted words.

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 has no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: side effects, authentication, rate limits, errors. It is complete for a mutation tool with zero parameters.

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 are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, but it also does not provide any extra context about parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate for no-param tools.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Run memory consolidation' that detects repeated patterns and creates summaries. The verb 'compress' combined with the detailed description distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cleanup' or 'forget', which have different functions.

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 description explains when to use the tool ('reduces memory footprint in long-running sessions') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'cleanup' or 'retract_pattern'. The context is clear though lacking direct exclusions.

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