get_compaction_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies read-only operation by being a 'get' function, but it does not explicitly state that it is safe or non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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, consisting of a single sentence and a bullet list of returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficient, with every word serving a purpose.

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?

Given no parameters and a simple return value, the description covers the basics. However, it could be more complete by noting whether the statistics are cumulative or snapshot, or confirming read-only behavior, especially since there is no output schema and no annotations.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). According to the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, as the description does not need to add parameter information.

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 'Get' and the resource 'statistics about the compaction memory buffer', and it lists three specific return values. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_compaction_context by focusing on buffer stats.

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 includes 'Use this to check buffer status', which gives a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, missing an opportunity for better guidance.

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