Condense ALL entries in a namespace into a single markdown summary via local Llama 3.2 3B (free, no token cost). Optionally store the result as a new memory entry. Registered handle + secret required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | ||
| secret | No | ||
| store_as | No | if set, stores the summary as a memory entry with this key | |
| namespace | No | namespace to summarize, or '*' for all (default '*') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses local model (Llama 3.2 3B) with no cost, and optional storage. Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent hints, but description clarifies optional mutation via store_as. No contradiction.
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?
Two compact sentences, no redundant phrasing. Front-loaded with core purpose.
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?
Sufficient given no output schema; covers parameters and use case. Could specify return format, but not critical.
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?
Description adds context for handle and secret (required), and mentions store_as effect and namespace default. Schema coverage 50% is partly compensated.
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?
Clearly states it condenses all entries in a namespace into a markdown summary. Distinguishes from sibling search/recall tools by focusing on summarization.
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?
Implies usage for summarizing a namespace, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings like search_memory. Mentions required authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.