Run an LLM-backed 4-tier consolidation pipeline to merge and organize project memories into episodic, semantic, or procedural tiers; in zero-LLM mode, write curated memories instead.
Run the LLM-backed 4-tier memory consolidation pipeline. Disabled in zero-LLM/noop mode; use curated memory/lesson/graph writes instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | Target tier: episodic, semantic, or procedural |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-preview.14-glama.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a critical mode-dependent behavior (silently disabled in zero-LLM/noop environments), which an agent must know. However, it omits what the pipeline actually does to stored memory (merge/rewrite/prune), whether it is destructive or reversible, and its cost/latency profile.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the fallback condition. No filler, though the redundancy between "LLM-backed" and "zero-LLM/noop mode" is slightly circular.
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 mutating pipeline tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the fallback path well but leaves the operational semantics underspecified — an agent cannot tell what the consolidation changes or what it returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% and the single optional 'tier' parameter already documents its allowed values (episodic, semantic, procedural). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ("Run") and resource ("4-tier memory consolidation pipeline") with the LLM-backed qualifier, which gives an agent a concrete picture beyond the name. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by redirecting to curated memory/lesson/graph writes, though it does not contrast against close relatives like memory_reflect or memory_crystallize.
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?
Explicitly names a when-not condition (zero-LLM/noop mode) and points to concrete alternatives (memory/lesson/graph writes instead). It lacks positive when-to-use guidance (what triggers consolidation), so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.