Skip to content

Tool descriptions embed usage essays (~18k tokens of definitions per session) while 24/26 tools have undescribed parameters #309

Description

@lCrazyblindl

The server's 26 tool definitions cost ~18,511 tokens (tiktoken cl100k) at tools/list — paid by every session up front. The bulk is long-form description sections (firecrawl_scrape ~1201 tokens of description; "Usage Example", "CRITICAL - Format Selection", "Common mistakes"...). That's documentation, and models are good at reading docs on demand — but it's being paid per-session as selection metadata. At the same time, 24 of 26 tools declare parameters with no description, so the layer models use for argument semantics is empty.

Measured what-if: trimming each description to its first paragraph alone puts the menu at ~9,218 tokens (50% less); a realistic middle (keep "Best for" lines, move format guidance into the relevant parameters' descriptions) lands close to that while improving argument-level clarity. Method + script: https://github.com/lCrazyblindl/lap/blob/main/docs/UPSTREAM-ISSUES.md.

Happy to draft the restructuring as a PR. (Disclosure: I maintain lap, the measurement tool; MIT, no product.)

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions