Compact Claude Code TUI Context

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the action ('run /compact') and mentions 'preservation instructions,' but does not explain potential consequences, side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. This is similar to a mutation tool lacking safety context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with a practical directive. Every word earns its place with no redundant detail.

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?

No output schema or annotations, and the tool invokes a compaction action. The description lacks prerequisites, what the user should expect, and how the instruction parameter affects behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Only 50% of parameters (instructions) have schema descriptions; cwd is undocumented. The description mentions 'preservation instructions' but does not clarify parameter roles or how cwd is used, failing to compensate 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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Ask the visible Claude Code TUI to run /compact' and clearly identifies the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact /compact operation and explicitly preferring companion_tui_compact_check first.

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?

It explicitly states 'Prefer companion_tui_compact_check first,' providing an alternative tool and a when-not-to-use signal. However, it does not fully explain prerequisites like whether a TUI must be visible or when compaction is appropriate.

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