compact_output

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the transformations performed (stripping, deduplication, collapsing) and mentions the attachment of fix cards for known error codes. This is comprehensive, though it does not discuss potential side effects like data loss or truncation thresholds.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the core functionality and usage context. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. It covers the main transformations and error code handling. It could mention the return format (e.g., compacted string) but is otherwise complete for its purpose.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on overall behavior. It does not elaborate on how 'mode' or 'budget' affect the output, which would be helpful.

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: compacting noisy command output by stripping ANSI, deduplicating spam, collapsing stack traces, extracting errors, and attaching fix cards. It specifies the target resource (command output) and the action (compact), making it distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use when test/build/lint output is long,' providing a clear context for use. While no alternatives are mentioned due to lack of siblings, it gives sufficient guidance for when to invoke this tool.

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