memory_compact

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. While it names the operation, it does not disclose whether existing briefing.md is overwritten, whether logs are truncated or deleted, whether compaction is reversible, or what side effects occur. For a mutating operation this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the key action and target. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 absence of annotations, no output schema, and the potentially destructive nature of 'compaction', the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the outcome for existing logs/briefing.md, the role of target_tokens beyond the schema, or any operational context needed to call it safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, which places it at the baseline of 3.

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 states a clear action ('Run server-side compaction') and identifies the resource ('log and sections') and destination ('briefing.md'). It is distinct enough from siblings like memory_store or memory_log, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself or explain what 'log and sections' refer to.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no mention of when compaction is appropriate. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and short description.

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