agloop_get_compaction_context

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Get') and adds context about its importance after compaction, but does not disclose whether it has side effects or requires authentication. Without annotations, more detail would strengthen transparency.

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 consists of two succinct sentences: the first lists returned fields, the second gives a usage hint. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words, achieving high 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 an output schema present (not shown but noted), the description covers the necessary context: it lists the fields returned and specifies when the tool is critical. For a 0-parameter getter, this is sufficient and 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not waste space on nonexistent params.

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 'Get compaction recovery context' and enumerates specific fields: compaction count, pending decision, last delegation, recovery hint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agloop_get_agent_info or agloop_get_state by focusing on compaction recovery.

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 phrase 'Critical after VS Code context compaction' provides a clear trigger for when to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use alternatives, the specific context is sufficient guidance for a 0-parameter tool.

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