Check the agent's memory state by viewing learned videos, chunks, topics, and semantic embedding status.
Report what the agent has learned so far: videos, chunks, topics, and whether semantic embeddings are active. Useful to check memory state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a non-mutating status inspection by saying 'Report' and 'check memory state,' and it adds a specific behavioral detail about semantic embeddings being active. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe side effects, but the wording strongly implies a safe diagnostic operation.
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 wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, lists the report contents, and then gives a usage cue. This is appropriately sized and easy to scan.
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?
For a zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool reports and when it is useful. It does not provide an exact output shape, but the enumerated categories give sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds value by enumerating what the report includes, which is the relevant semantic content for a no-argument 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 a specific verb ('Report') and names the resource ('what the agent has learned so far'), with concrete report contents: videos, chunks, topics, and embedding status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transcript, research_topic, and search_knowledge, which are retrieval/research operations.
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 'Useful to check memory state' provides a clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the status-report nature is evident enough among the listed siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.