get_compaction_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that entries are listed most-recent first and that filtering is available, but it lacks details on what 'recent' means, pagination, or authentication requirements. This is basic but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and covers key details without any wasted words. It is optimally concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks details on response format, error handling, or ordering guarantee beyond 'most-recent first'. The word 'recent' is vague.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds only that the parameters are for filtering ('session_id' and 'limit count'). It does not specify formats, allowed ranges, or default values, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'recent compaction audit entries', with ordering 'most-recent first'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'record_compaction_audit' as the read operation, providing clear purpose.

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 retrieving audit entries and specifies filtering options ('Filter by session_id or limit count'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, though the context makes it clear.

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