whim_compact

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It does so by explaining the exact operation: 'Keeps first and last messages intact, truncates the middle.' This gives the agent a clear understanding of what will happen, though it does not mention any potential data loss or irreversibility.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by key behavioral details and a clarifying caveat. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 simplicity (two parameters, no nested objects) and the behavioral detail provided, the description is fairly complete. It explains the operation, the preservation rule, and a caveat. It does not describe the return value, but for a simple transformation tool this is likely sufficient.

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 already thoroughly describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds context about token budget targets but does not enrich the semantics of individual parameters meaningfully. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the load.

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 verb and resource: 'Truncate conversation history to fit a token budget.' It further clarifies scope by noting 'Keeps first and last messages intact, truncates the middle,' which distinguishes it from generic compaction or summarization tools.

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 an explicit use case: 'to fit a token budget.' It also differentiates from summarization with 'This is truncation, not summarization.' However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for most situations.

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