compress_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses that the tool filters, compresses, extracts failures, and discards noise. It also defines the output focus ('root-cause failures and actionable file locations'). However, it does not mention input precedence when both rawLog and logPath are supplied, nor the return format, leaving minor gaps.

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 entire description is one sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then efficiently lists supported log types and the desired outcome. There is no filler or repetition of schema names, and every clause adds useful 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?

The description is sufficiently complete for a moderately complex tool with no output schema and no annotations: it covers operation, input domain, output intent, and specific tool ecosystems. The only notable omission is the returned data structure and how the two optional inputs interact, but these are not critical for basic invocation with schema coverage at 100%.

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 100%, so both parameters (rawLog and logPath) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation weight.

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 opens with strong verbs ('Filters and compresses') and names a specific resource: verbose test runs, build logs, and compiler outputs. It also states the intended outcome ('extract only the root-cause failures and actionable file locations') and what is discarded ('passing suites and noise'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_symbol and condense_source, which target different source types and extraction goals.

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 clearly implies the use case—compress verbose build/test logs to isolate failures—but it never explicitly says when NOT to use it or names alternative tools. Sibling tools like condense_source could plausibly overlap, and the description does not draw an explicit boundary. Usage guidance is present but only by inference.

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