sovereign_optimize_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool pre-filters, returns cited evidence chunks, and guarantees at least 40% token reduction. It does not, however, disclose read-only status, clearance enforcement behavior, failure modes, or what happens when no verified evidence is found.

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 with no filler. The main function is front-loaded, and the performance benefit is stated immediately after. Every phrase 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives only a high-level view: evidence chunks, citations, and token reduction. Parameter details are covered by the schema, but return structure, enum behavior, and edge cases are left unspecified, which is a notable gap for a tool this complex.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter explanation in the tool description. The description adds no parameter-level nuance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'pre-filters large archives' into 'verified evidence chunks with citations.' It also conveys a distinct value proposition around token reduction, which separates it from sibling search/inspection tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 token-reduction framing implies use when an agent needs condensed, verified context before consumption. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool or which sibling to prefer instead, so usage rules remain mostly implicit.

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