slimctx_compress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the output is a compact version, preserves errors, outliers, and query-relevant content, and that recovery is possible via a [slimctx-ref ...] marker. This gives the agent meaningful expectations beyond the basic 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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first states the primary action, second explains what the output preserves, and third covers the recovery marker. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no superfluous information.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns and its notable behavioral aspects, including preservation and recovery. It does not cover edge cases like missing query or size limits, but for a two-parameter tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the parameters with clear descriptions ('Content to compress' and 'What you are looking for (steers relevance)'). The tool description adds limited new meaning, mainly aligning 'query-relevant content' with the query parameter. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Compress large tool output, logs, JSON, or file content before reasoning over it.' It uses a specific verb and resource scope, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool slimctx_retrieve by explaining the recovery mechanism. This makes the purpose unmistakable and distinct.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: before reasoning over large content. It also explains what to do after compression if a marker appears, pointing to slimctx_retrieve. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with slimctx_stats, so it stops short of a 5.

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