compact_next

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description adds confusion rather than clarity: it introduces states (rotate, blocked, waiting, busy, done) without saying what the tool does in each, whether calling it mutates queue state, whether it is idempotent, or what a caller receives. 'Take the next job' implies consumption/claiming, but nothing confirms that semantics.

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?

Two short sentences with the audience constraint front-loaded, which is good structure. The terseness comes at the cost of comprehensibility, though: it is under-specified rather than efficient, and the second sentence piles up five unexplained state names.

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?

With no output schema, an undocumented sole parameter, and a non-read-only mutation, the description needs to carry real weight and doesn't. It omits what the call returns, what the state names mean for the caller, and what the caller should do next, leaving the agent unable to invoke this correctly without outside knowledge.

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 0% and the single 'worker' parameter is an untyped string with no enum, so the description is the only source of meaning. It mentions 'worker' and 'without a token' but never says what a worker value is (ID, name, token-less handle), whether it is required, or what happens when it is omitted.

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 does name two concrete actions (start a worker, take the next job), which is more than a restatement of the name, but the framing is dominated by internal jargon ('optchat-compactor subagent', 'without a token', 'rotate') that an agent cannot decode without prior context. It never says plainly that this is a job-queue poll/mutation for a compaction worker, so the resource is only inferable.

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?

It restricts usage to one audience ('For the optchat-compactor subagent') and gives a cryptic exit rule ('On rotate, blocked, waiting, busy or done, return to the parent'), but never relates itself to the obvious alternatives (compact_resume, compact_submit, compact_release, compact_read). There is no when-to-use-this-instead-of-that guidance, and the status list is never explained, so the agent must guess which state triggers which sibling.

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