compress_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool 'replaces raw messages with a compressed summary, freeing up the buffer,' which clearly conveys the destructive nature and effect. Could be improved by noting irreversibility or return value.

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 concise, with the main purpose in the first line, followed by a behavioral explanation and usage guideline in the second paragraph, then parameter docs. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and parameters adequately. No output schema is present, so return values are not described, but for a compression tool the main effect is clear. It covers the essential information for an agent to decide when to use it.

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 0%, but the description includes an Args section that explains both parameters: target as 'Group ID or friend QQ ID' and target_type with default 'group'. This adds necessary meaning beyond the bare schema, though ID format could be more specific.

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 action ('Compress'), resource ('buffered messages'), and scope ('for a target into a summary'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_recent_context and batch_get_recent_context by focusing on compression, not retrieval.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'after reading context when you want to archive old messages.' It provides a clear usage context but does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives.

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