declare_available_modelsDeclare which models are available in this session for orchestration routing. Called once at session start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| models | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only adds that the tool is called once at session start, but says nothing about side effects, idempotency, authorization, or how the declaration affects subsequent orchestration. This is a minimal disclosure, leaving the agent to guess about state changes and required setup.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds one essential usage detail, making every word earn its place.
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?
Despite an output schema being present, the description omits critical information about what the tool returns, how models are used for routing, and the semantics of capability_class and latency_tier. The tool is likely simple, but the description's brevity leaves important gaps for an orchestration-related tool, especially when no annotations help fill the void.
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%, and the description provides no guidance on the two parameters (session_id and models). While the schema names are self-explanatory to some degree, the meaning of critical nested fields like capability_class and latency_tier (and their allowed values) is left entirely to the schema without any explanatory context, which is insufficient for a tool with no other prose.
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 a specific verb ('declare') and resource ('available models'), and clearly scopes the action to 'in this session for orchestration routing'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_platform_capabilities or list_external_services, making the purpose immediately clear.
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 explicitly states when to call the tool ('Called once at session start'), providing clear context for usage. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when-not' guidance that would earn a 5.
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.