compress_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool removes irrelevant sections and returns token savings, but it does not explain how relevance is determined, whether the operation is lossy, or any side effects (e.g., does it modify existing context?). Key behaviors like algorithmic details or constraints are missing.

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 sentence that immediately states the primary action and outcome. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with separate lines for input and output. The brevity is appropriate given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return format. It mentions 'token savings' but does not specify whether the output is a string, object, or other. The two parameters are well-covered by the schema, but error conditions (e.g., what if intent is too vague?) and behavior with large inputs are not addressed. The sibling list shows related tools, but the description does not help the agent choose between them.

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% for both parameters. The description's mention of 'removing irrelevant sections' reinforces the intent parameter's role in determining relevance, but it does not add new syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. The description also hints at a token savings return, but that is related to output, not parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states the tool compresses context by removing irrelevant sections, and specifies it targets code and docs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'prune_tools' (which prunes tool definitions) and 'optimize_prompt' (which improves prompts). The verb 'compress' and resource 'context' are clear and specific.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prune_tools' or 'refine_prompt'. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The absence of usage context forces the agent to infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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