compact_skill_memory

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

The description discloses that the tool 'replaces the old entries with your summary,' which highlights the destructive/overwriting behavior. It also notes that it should only be called when memory is full, indicating a state-dependent side effect. However, with no annotations providing safety hints, the description could go further by mentioning authorization requirements or reversibility, but the core behavioral impact is communicated.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear trigger/usage paragraph, and a bulleted Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant fluff.This is an example of effective, efficient writing.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description is largely complete: it covers what the tool does, when to call it, and what the main arguments mean. However, it omits the return value/expected outcome (e.g., whether it returns the new summary or a success status) and does not clarify the optional config parameter. These are minor gaps, but the description still gives an agent enough to proceed safely.

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 description explains the two required parameters: skill_id ('The skill whose memory to compact') and summary ('The distilled summary of durable lessons to keep'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, the optional 'config' parameter is completely undocumented, leaving its purpose unclear. Since two of three parameters are well described, the description mostly compensates for the low schema coverage.

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's function: 'Compact a skill's MEMORY into one summary entry (when it gets large).' It identifies the specific resource (memory), the action (compacting into a summary), and the condition (when large). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by referencing append_skill_memory, showing a unique trigger.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this only when append_skill_memory returns memory_full.' It also gives a step-by-step workflow ('Read the memory, distill the durable lessons into a concise summary, and pass it here'), which clearly instructs when and how to invoke the tool. This differentiates it from alternatives and sets a strong precondition.

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