openclaw_sessions_compact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that compaction creates a snapshot and keeps the session live, which is key. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., performance impact), error conditions, or whether the operation is asynchronous.

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 very concise—a single sentence with a parenthetical and a mention of the underlying API. Every part is relevant, though slightly more structure (e.g., a separate section for behavior) could improve readability without added length.

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?

For a simple trigger action, the description is adequate but lacks details on return values (e.g., compaction ID), error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., session must be active). Given the richness of sibling compaction tools, more context would be beneficial.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Trigger' and the resource 'compaction of a session's history', and distinguishes from sibling compaction tools (list, get, restore, branch) by specifying it creates a new snapshot while keeping the session live.

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 implies usage for creating a new compaction but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like openclaw_sessions_compaction_restore or openclaw_sessions_compaction_branch. No when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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