compress_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the operation ('compress') without disclosing important behaviors such as whether existing archives are overwritten, permissions handling, error conditions, or the output format. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single, concise sentence that earns its place without being verbose. It could benefit from additional context (e.g., result details) while remaining concise, but as is, it is efficient.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the archive path), what happens on failure, or how to handle edge cases (e.g., empty directories). A more complete description is expected for a tool with five parameters and no other structured documentation.

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 has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, each with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. Per guidelines, with high coverage, baseline 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 purpose: 'Compress files or directories into an archive'. The verb 'compress' is specific, and the resource 'files or directories' is unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'extract_archive', which performs the opposite operation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling name 'extract_archive' implies its complement, there is no mention of preconditions, limitations, or when to choose this over other compression-related tools. The lack of usage context lowers the score.

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