consolidate

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true. The description adds operational details: it 'distils old sessions into durable entity notes and archives the originals', clarifying the destructive nature. It also reveals the LLM requirement, which is beyond annotations.

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 very concise: three sentences, no redundancy. Purpose is front-loaded; each sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and a key requirement.

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 (two optional parameters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage scenario, and a critical dependency. It does not describe return value but an output schema exists. Some details about parameter defaults (current project) are implied but not explicit.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two optional parameters (project and older_than_days). It mentions 'old finished sessions' but does not elaborate on parameter usage.

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 compresses old finished sessions into durable entity notes, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (checkpoint, get_brief, etc.) by being the only one focused on consolidation.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use the tool: when a project's session log is large and space needs to be reclaimed. It also mentions a prerequisite (requires configured LLM model). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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