compact_submit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context about retry semantics and that 'The reply holds the next job,' though it omits any permission or side-effect details.

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?

Three short sentences with the key instruction ('one summary line per open task, in task order') front-loaded. It is lean but the cryptic 'For the compactor' opener slightly reduces clarity without adding much.

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?

No output schema exists and the required 'job' parameter is undocumented, so the description leaves a significant gap for a tool with three parameters. It explains retry behavior and reply content but not what 'job' is or how it is obtained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, but the required 'job' parameter is never explained. It only vaguely maps 'one summary line per open task' to 'line'/'lines' and never clarifies when to use 'line' versus 'lines'.

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 implies submission of summary lines to a 'compactor' and specifies their ordering, but it never states plainly that compact_submit submits compaction results. It is distinguishable from sibling tools only faintly, via the compactor/retry framing.

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 gives one when-condition for retries ('On retry, send lines only for the listed tasks') but does not say when to use compact_submit versus siblings like compact_next, compact_resume, or compact_release. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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