Check Claude Code TUI Compact Readiness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It adds a key caveat ('heuristic, not a true token-limit reading') which prevents over-reliance. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor describe the output format.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. The second sentence adds a necessary caveat. No wasted words, well-structured.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with optional parameters, but there is no output schema. The description doesn't explain the return value (e.g., boolean, score, message), which an agent would need to act on the result. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like whether the TUI must be open. Adequate but with gaps.

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 schema documents 'lines' well with default and constraints, but 'cwd' has no description. The description text doesn't add meaning for either parameter, and with 50% schema coverage it doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'cwd' parameter.

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: inspecting the TUI and metadata to decide checkpoint readiness for /compact. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like companion_tui_compact (which actually runs compact) and companion_tui_screen (which views the screen).

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 as a pre-check before running /compact, and warns that it is heuristic rather than a true token-limit reading. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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