get_compaction_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the ordering (most-recent first) and the available filters (session_id, limit), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether limit has a default, or describe the return format or pagination behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers all key information without redundancy. Every clause adds functional value, and there is no wasted text.

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 simple list/filter tool, the description covers the essential purpose and options. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without knowledge of the returned fields, default limit behavior, or error cases. This is adequate for simple use but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does clarify that session_id filters and limit controls the count, which is helpful. However, the semantics are shallow: it does not specify whether limit is mandatory, its maximum/default value, or whether session_id requires exact or partial matching.

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 lists compaction audit entries in reverse chronological order. It names the specific resource (compaction audit entries) and the action (list), which differentiates it from write-oriented siblings like record_compaction_audit. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the similar get_audit_log_head tool, preventing a perfect score.

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 usage for inspecting compaction audit history, and the mention of filtering suggests relevant scenarios. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_audit_log_head, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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