Record a short summary of each resolved conversation topic to create a searchable daily log, making it easy to locate what was asked or fixed on any past day.
记录对话流水：每次协作结束时，把本次对话"问过/解决了什么"记成一行短句（≤40字）。 同一天自动合并成一行。作用：用户三个月后模糊记得"问过某个问题但没存卡"，靠流水能定位到是哪天、什么场景。 调用时机：①一个话题收尾时记一句；②用户说收尾时补记当天漏掉的。 示例：log_topic("anchor-memory 误删 three.core.js 已从镜像恢复")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | 一行短句描述本次做了/解决了什么，≤40字 | |
| project | No | 项目名（可选） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the schema by revealing that same-day entries are automatically merged, that entries are limited to 40 characters, and that the log serves future recall. It does not detail mutation side effects or return behavior, but for a lightweight logging tool the disclosed traits are sufficient.
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 organized into clear sections: action, merging behavior, purpose, call timing, and an example. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence adds practical information and the main action is front-loaded.
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 only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to know when to call the tool, what to pass, what length constraint applies, and what the tool does with the input. The example further disambiguates the expected text format.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example and restates the 40-character limit, but it does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema for either 'text' or 'project'.
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 and resource ('记录对话流水', record conversation log) and clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling card-management tools by stating it captures a short line of what was asked/solved. The purpose is concrete and unambiguous.
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 gives explicit call timing: record when a topic wraps up, and backfill when the user says the session is ending. This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives. The sibling names make the distinction fairly obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.