Bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it concatenates files for compact context, which is useful, but does not disclose important behaviors such as how files are selected (glob vs paths), truncation limits, or what happens if limits are exceeded. Given annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter or usage details without losing conciseness, but as is, it earns a high score for structure.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and a specific use case (bundling files for context), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, the selection logic (glob vs paths), or default behaviors. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool effectively without external knowledge.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameters. The parameters 'glob', 'paths', 'max_files', 'max_total_chars', and 'max_chars_per_file' are not described in the description or via context signals, leaving the agent to guess their semantics. The description must compensate for low schema coverage but fails to do so.

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 verb 'concatenate' and resource 'redacted text files', and adds the purpose 'for compact agent context'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'redctx_read' (individual file reading) and 'redctx_search' (searching), making it easy for an agent to understand when to use it.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context on trade-offs or when to prefer this over other tools like redctx_read or redctx_search.

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