redcon_compress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: produces a compressed view, reduces tokens 3-10x, includes specific content, and may be insufficient compared to full file. This is useful but doesn't cover error conditions or exact output structure.

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 with no waste. The first sentence states the purpose and key characteristics; the second gives clear usage guidance. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 is sufficiently complete for a simple read/compress tool. It explains what the tool does, what the output includes, and when to use it. The lack of output schema is mitigated by describing the content types. It doesn't explain the exact return format, but that's not critical for selection/invocation.

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 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description adds the concept of 'task-scoped' to clarify the task parameter's role and mentions token reduction related to max_tokens. However, it doesn't meaningfully expand on path or repo beyond the schema.

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 generates a 'task-scoped compressed view of one file' with a specific content set (signatures, imports, relevant sections) and token reduction. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, so it's clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Prefer this over reading a whole file; fetch the full file only if it is insufficient.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus the alternative of reading the full file, though it doesn't address when to choose other redcon siblings.

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