Reads a compact identity state—OCEAN traits, dominant emotion, and drive—plus an injectable prompt snippet, then re-injects it each turn to prevent context-compaction amnesia.
读取紧凑身份态（OCEAN+主导情绪+驱力）+ 可注入 prompt 片段。每轮重注入宿主 prompt 抗压缩失忆。
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the read-only nature (读取), the exact returned state components, the presence of an injectable prompt fragment, and the intended re-injection behavior every round. It does not cover side effects or error handling, but for a zero-parameter read tool the behavioral profile is largely transparent.
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 dense sentences, front-loading purpose and following with the usage rationale. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must characterize the return; it names the identity components and the prompt fragment. It could specify format or type more precisely, but for a simple snapshot tool the description is nearly complete.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and adds no conflicting information.
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 states a clear read operation and names the exact content: compact identity state (OCEAN + dominant emotion + drive) plus an injectable prompt fragment. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like status, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to select it.
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?
It provides a clear usage context: re-inject into the host prompt each round to resist compression amnesia. No alternatives or when-not conditions are named, but the operational cadence is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.