compress_prepare

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

The description discloses that no API key is needed and that the tool only reads files, not compressing them. This adds value beyond the input schema, though it could mention potential errors like missing files.

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 sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding essential workflow context. No redundant information is present.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and workflow. Minor omissions like return format details do not significantly hinder usability.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the parameter 'filepath' is not described beyond the name. The description only mentions 'Read a file' without specifying file formats, encoding, or constraints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Read a file and return its content with compression instructions,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by outlining the workflow: the agent compresses the returned content and passes it to compress_write.

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 preparatory step before compress_write by stating 'the calling agent compresses the returned content, then passes it to compress_write.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with compress_restore or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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