assess_character_driftRun the on-demand AgentCharacterKernel distribution-layer sweep for an agent and return emitted drift events for the requested window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| window_end | No | ||
| window_start | No | ||
| min_decision_count | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and operational behavior. It states the tool runs a sweep and returns events, suggesting a potentially resource-intensive operation, but it does not mention whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, what side effects occur, or how the sweep behaves under edge cases.
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 that wastes no words. It leads with the action verb and key resource, making it easy to scan. The length is appropriate for the provided information.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks parameter semantics, side-effect disclosure, and guidance on prerequisites or edge cases. While the output schema covers return values, the other gaps make the description incomplete for reliable agent invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It weakly relates to window parameters via 'requested window' and agent via 'for an agent,' but it entirely omits the meaning of min_decision_count and gives no detail on window format or constraints. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.
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 uses specific, actionable language: 'Run the on-demand AgentCharacterKernel distribution-layer sweep' and 'return emitted drift events.' It clearly identifies the resource (AgentCharacterKernel), the action (sweep), and the result (drift events for a window), distinguishing it from sibling assessment tools.
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 'on-demand' implies the tool is used when a manual drift check is needed, and 'for the requested window' scopes the usage to a time range. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage context is only implied.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_claim and memory_claim_check are the same function with different tiers, get_freshness_report and memory_freshness_report are duplicates, get_correction_chain and compare_versions both trace history, and investigate_question subsumes many other retrieval tools. This will cause agent misselection.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_constraints, declare_constraint, sync_pull, etc.). Exceptions like memory_claim_check, memory_freshness_report, session_debrief, and verify_before_acting deviate but are relatively few. Overall the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
75 tools is excessive for a memory server. Many are highly niche or direct duplicates (e.g., paid/free versions of the same function). The count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers and introduces cognitive overhead without proportional value.
The server covers a wide array of memory, constraint, decision, skill, and sync operations, which is impressive. However, there are notable gaps: no direct delete or edit for memory facts (only corrections/versioning), and no bulk enumeration of all stored items. The redundancy in retrieval tools also suggests an incomplete design.