Compile compact task context from project state for security investigations; flag critical details that exceed the soft budget. Use it to keep MCP sessions within token limits.
Compile compact task context; critical state may exceed soft budget and is flagged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| budget | No | ||
| project | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful trait beyond that — that critical state may exceed the soft budget and be flagged — which hints at output behavior, but says nothing about how the flag manifests or how budget pressure is handled.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the budget caveat is appended rather than buried. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and three parameters, one short sentence is not enough to call this tool correctly. Nothing tells the agent what a compiled context contains, how 'project' and 'query' interact, or what the flagged over-budget result looks like.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. It only gestures at 'budget' (soft budget) while leaving the required 'project' and optional 'query' parameters — and their formats, maxLength, and pattern constraints — unexplained.
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 verb 'Compile' and resource 'task context' give a rough sense of purpose, but 'task context' is vague and the description never distinguishes this from siblings like memory_search, memory_graph, or project_resume. An agent cannot confidently tell when this tool applies versus adjacent memory tools.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many memory/project siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.