mcp-compress

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the three specific statistics returned, implying a read-only operation. However, lacks details on whether statistics are cached or real-time, computational cost, or potential side effects that would be valuable without safety annotations.

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?

Single, dense sentence with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with action verb, immediately followed by colon-delimited list of specific return values. Every word earns its place; cannot be shortened without information loss.

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 zero-parameter tool without output schema, the description compensates effectively by enumerating the three specific metrics returned. Sufficiently complete for invocation decisions, though output schema would be ideal for programmatic consumption.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, establishing baseline of 4. Description appropriately makes no reference to parameters, focusing instead on return value semantics since none are required.

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?

Specifies exact verb ('Show') and resource ('compression statistics'), and enumerates specific metrics returned (items stored, bytes saved, ratio). Clearly distinguishes from operational siblings like compress/decompress/store/retrieve which manipulate individual items, positioning this as an aggregate reporting tool.

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?

Provides implied usage through specificity of returned metrics (you'd use this when needing aggregate storage efficiency data), but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'analyze' or 'list', and omits prerequisites or constraints.

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