compact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that a summary.md artifact is created, but says nothing about where it is written, whether it overwrites an existing file, idempotency, or permission requirements for a mutation-style operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and artifact appear first. It is efficiently sized for a one-parameter tool, though the parenthetical is slightly awkward.

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 one-param tool this is thin: no output schema means the description should explain the produced summary.md and its lifecycle, and it leaves the overlap with the summarize/handoff siblings unresolved.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'La sesión de un job' loosely ties job_id to a job, but gives no format, source, or valid-value guidance for the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (comprime) and resource (la sesión de un job) and names the concrete artifact produced (summary.md). However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as summarize or handoff, and the trailing 'con handoff' is ambiguous since handoff is itself a sibling tool.

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?

Implies usage by describing the output as 'reutilizable con handoff', which hints at a downstream workflow, but never states when to choose compact over the sibling summarize tool or any precondition for running it.

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