mcp-compress

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions compression and disk storage, but omits critical behavioral details: return value (essential since 'name' is optional/auto-generated), overwrite behavior if key exists, and error conditions. These gaps hinder correct invocation.

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?

Three efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with action ('Compress data and store...'), followed by lifecycle context and analogy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Adequate for basic usage given well-documented schema, but significant gaps remain regarding output behavior—specifically what the tool returns (the stored key? success status?) when the name is auto-generated. No output schema compounds this omission.

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 100% with clear descriptions ('Key name for retrieval', 'Compression algorithm'), establishing baseline of 3. Description adds conceptual framing ('key-value store') reinforcing parameter semantics but does not add syntax details, formats, or examples beyond the schema.

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?

Clear specific action ('Compress data and store it to disk') and resource. Uses effective analogy ('compressed key-value store'). Slightly misses explicit differentiation from sibling 'compress' tool, though 'to disk' implies persistence beyond mere compression.

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?

Implies usage context via key-value store analogy and mentions retrieval workflow. However, lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance—particularly regarding when to use 'compress' instead of 'store', or prerequisites like available disk space.

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