MCP File Compaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is shown (e.g., active file, cached summaries) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, or how data is formatted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and well-structured, using a bulleted list to clearly outline the components shown by the tool. Every sentence (or bullet point) earns its place by adding specific value, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 complexity (moderate, as it involves tracking and status reporting), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description provides some context but is incomplete. It lists what is shown but does not cover behavioral aspects or output format details. For a tool with no structured data support, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves or what the return values entail.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter semantics in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately does not discuss parameters, avoiding redundancy. It focuses on the tool's output aspects instead.

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 purpose: to show the status of all tracked files, listing specific components like the active file, cached summaries, and context savings. It uses the verb 'show' with the resource 'tracked files', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'peek_file' or 'read_file', which might also involve file status or content viewing, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'peek_file' or 'read_file', nor does it specify contexts or prerequisites for usage. This lack of comparative or contextual information leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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