compress_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It details exactly what transformations occur (removing articles, fillers, pleasantries, hedges) and what is preserved (code blocks, URLs, paths, identifiers), plus the output (compressed text and character counts). It does not mention potential unintended rephrasing or irreversible effects, but overall it is transparent beyond a generic 'compress' statement.

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?

Three compact sentences: the first states the core function, the second lists what is removed, the third lists what is preserved and the return value. Every sentence contributes essential information; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one simple parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and no sibling tools, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: the transformation rules, the preserved elements, and the return format (compressed text and character counts). Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'text' described as 'Text to compress.' The description adds that the input is prose text, which slightly extends the schema's generic description, satisfying the baseline expectation. No additional parameter details are needed given the simple structure.

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 compresses prose text using 'caveman rules,' enumerates what is removed (articles, fillers, pleasantries, hedges) and preserved (code blocks, URLs, paths, identifiers), and specifies the return value. This is a specific verb+resource with detailed scope that leaves no doubt about the tool's function.

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 implies appropriate use for compressing prose text, especially when preserving technical elements like code blocks and URLs. No explicit alternatives are given since there are no sibling tools, but the context ('Compress prose text') provides clear usage direction without exclusions.

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