get_compaction_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It indicates the tool is a read-only retrieval from a memory buffer with no mention of side effects or destructive actions. It lists the output components but doesn't clarify if the buffer is cleared or permissions required. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences long, each with a clear purpose: main action, output components, usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the summary includes (key points, active tasks, breakthroughs, full text). It lacks only minor details like format or size constraints, but is sufficient for agent understanding.

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?

There are zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter information. It meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 tool retrieves recent context from compaction memory buffer and returns a formatted summary of the last 3 compactions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_compaction_stats (stats) and store_compaction_summary (storage) by specifying the exact resource and output.

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 explicitly advises to use 'IMMEDIATELY after compaction to regain context,' providing clear timing guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to alternatives, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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