get_compaction_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It states 'most-recent first' as ordering behavior, but lacks disclosure of auth requirements, potential side effects, or data access scope. For a read-only list, more transparency is expected.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No redundant words or details. Efficient and clear.

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?

With no output schema, the description should cover return fields or pagination. It does not. It's adequate for a simple list but missing details about what constitutes an audit entry and default behavior. Adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions session_id and limit but only says 'Filter by' without explaining the format of session_id or the default/cap on limit. This adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names.

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 recent compaction audit entries in order, with a specific verb 'list' and resource 'compaction audit entries'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'record_compaction_audit' which creates entries.

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?

Mentions filtering by session_id or limit, which provides basic usage guidance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_health_report or when not to use it.

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