Synthesizes session context for a question by recalling or searching stored memories, with optional LLM synthesis to produce a consolidated answer.
Synthesize session context for a question. Hindsight uses recall; mem0/Cognee search then optional LiteLLM synthesis (PM_LLM_URL / stack LiteLLM).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bank | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does add useful behavioral context: behavior varies by provider, and mem0/Cognee may perform search plus optional LiteLLM synthesis using PM_LLM_URL. However, it does not state whether the call is read-only, whether it persists anything, expected cost/latency, or auth requirements beyond a config variable name.
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?
It is compact and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is dense with unexplained names and acronyms (Hindsight, mem0/Cognee, PM_LLM_URL, stack LiteLLM), reducing its practical clarity.
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 tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: parameter meanings, return shape, side effects, and selection guidance versus siblings are missing. The provider routing note helps, but not enough to make the definition 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only implies that 'query' is the question being synthesized, while 'bank' and 'limit' are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Synthesize session context for a question.' The second sentence distinguishes this from lower-level siblings by naming recall/search as internal steps, though the provider jargon makes the boundary less crisp than it could be.
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?
Usage is only implied: synthesize context for a question, with recall/search mentioned as internal mechanisms. There is no explicit rule for when to choose this over memory_recall or memory_search, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.