agentbay_memory_compact

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the tool's main actions and supports dry-run mode, signaling it modifies state but allows preview. However, it does not discuss permissions, error handling, or side effects beyond the listed tasks.

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?

Two focused sentences without extraneous words; the core action and key feature (dry-run) are front-loaded, making every word earn its place.

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 main actions and dry-run, but omits details on return values, success/failure indicators, prerequisites (e.g., project existence), and post-compaction behavior. Given no output schema, 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds high-level context (e.g., linking staleDays to 'stale archival') but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectations.

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 runs memory compaction and enumerates specific actions (TTL expiration, stale archival, duplicate merge), distinguishing it from sibling memory tools like retrieval, storage, or verification.

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?

While the description implies use for maintenance/cleanup tasks, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agentbay_memory_forget or agentbay_memory_health, and no when-not scenarios.

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