Compacts verbose terminal logs or test outputs by 90-98% with SnapKV observation windows, preserving all stack traces and errors for clearer debugging.
Compact verbose terminal logs or test outputs by 90-98% using SnapKV observation windows while retaining all stack traces and errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw_text | Yes | Raw terminal or build output | |
| max_lines | No |
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. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it retains all stack traces and errors, which is critical for an agent to know the compaction is lossy but safe for debugging. However, it doesn't mention other potential behaviors like idempotency or side effects.
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?
Single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action, target, and benefit. No redundancy or filler.
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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and one behavioral trait. However, it fails to explain the 'max_lines' parameter or any edge cases, leaving gaps for an agent to call it 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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It does not describe the 'max_lines' parameter or its effect on the output, nor does it explain the 'raw_text' input beyond what the schema already says. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.
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 (Compact), resource (terminal logs or test outputs), and quantifies the effect (90-98%). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like cortex_context_pack or cortex_prompt_lookup.
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?
Implies usage context (verbose terminal logs, test outputs) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.