store_compaction_summary

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

With no annotations, the description fully conveys behavioral traits: it writes to a rolling memory buffer, keeps last 3 summaries in FIFO order, and deletes oldest when a 4th is added. It also notes automatic invocation. Missing details about permissions or side effects, but for a store operation these are sufficient.

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 extremely concise: three short paragraphs that cover the purpose, automatic behavior, buffer policy, and retrieval guidance. Every sentence contributes value without verbosity or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for a storage tool: what it stores, when it's invoked (automatically), buffer size and eviction policy, and how to retrieve the result. It doesn't explain return values (no output schema) or session ID details, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, it is largely complete.

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 the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'The full compaction summary text' for summary_text is repetitive of the schema's description). No additional context for parameter usage beyond the schema is provided, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's action: 'Store a compaction summary in the rolling memory buffer.' It specifies the verb 'store' and resource 'compaction summary', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_compaction_context and get_compaction_stats by mentioning its role in the compaction lifecycle.

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool: 'This is AUTOMATICALLY called when context compaction occurs.' It also directs the user to retrieve results via get_compaction_context. However, it does not explicitly state when manual use would be appropriate or when not to use it, which slightly limits guidance.

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