compact

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

没有注解，但描述承担了透明度的责任。它声明这是破坏性操作（丢弃早期语境），但增加了安全保证（数据在永久内存中，recall可恢复），增加了丰富背景。它没有具体说明输出格式或机制，但因此给出一个3分，基于无注解条件下的描述质量。

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?

描述紧凑且组织清晰：先声明触发条件，然后说明行为（保存到保存，返回），再说明使用后续步骤。每个词都有价值，无多余。

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?

该工具只有一个参数，无输出schema，描述足够让人正确调用它。工具的行为、触发时间和后续行动都已覆盖。唯一缺失的是返回格式，但这未形成阻碍，且不关键。

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中有一个参数conversation，其描述为“The conversation so far, as text.”并且schema覆盖率为100%，所以schema已经解释了参数。描述仅带有上下文提示（此参数用于压缩会话），但未额外添加语法或格式细节。基线为3分是合适的。

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?

描述清晰说明了工具的作用：当上下文窗口即将填满时，紧凑会话以释放空间。动词“紧凑”与资源“会话”明确，与兄弟工具（recall、timeline、remember）区分明显。此定义准确且行动导向。

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?

描述明确给出了使用的时机（约70%充满时，在转折滚动前）、原因（上下文窗口将满）、及后续行为（从返回块继续，早期转弯视为丢弃）。还明确说明替代方案（recall可以检索），这是明确的试用指引。

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