compact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that the default provider is fully offline (no key, no network), that 'auto'/'laya' semantics differ, that jev requires TYPESAFE_API_KEY, and that failures are fail-safe (content is kept). The dependency and key requirements are exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema. It stops short of describing output format or what 'irrelevant' means operationally.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact provider notes. The semicolon-separated provider clauses are dense but readable, and no sentence is wasted, though the provider detail could be tightened.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description covers provider selection and failure behavior well but omits any explanation of the required text/question semantics or the threshold's effect on filtering. Adequate but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the provider enum options well (mechanical/laya/jev and their requirements), but says nothing about 'text', 'question', or the 'threshold' number and its 0.4 default, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Drop context blocks irrelevant to an objective,' which tells the agent this is a filtering/compaction operation keyed to a question. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling compact_transcript, so an agent must guess which compaction tool applies.

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 never states when to use this tool versus compact_transcript or the other siblings, nor any preconditions for invoking it. The provider paragraph explains operational modes but is not usage-routing guidance, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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