Consolidate stored notes now to improve memory accuracy; automatically runs every 20 writes. Set all_notes to re-judge all notes after upgrades.
Run a consolidation pass now (also runs automatically every 20 writes). all_notes=True re-judges every stored note from scratch (slow: one Jev call per note); use it once after upgrading jevmem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all_notes | No |
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. It usefully discloses automatic cadence and the cost/latency of all_notes=True (one Jev call per note). It does not say what consolidation actually does to stored notes, whether it merges/rewrites/drops anything, or whether it is reversible.
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-loaded with the action, followed by cadence and parameter guidance. Slightly jargon-heavy ('Jev call', 'jevmem') but nothing wasted.
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?
Covers trigger, cadence, cost, and the single parameter, which is enough to invoke it. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the effect of consolidation on stored memory and any indication of what the pass returns, leaving a mutation-adjacent tool under-described.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that all_notes=True re-judges every stored note from scratch, that it is slow, and when to use it. Only the default (false) behavior is left implicit.
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+resource: 'Run a consolidation pass now.' The parenthetical about automatic runs clarifies scope. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like memory_flush_pending or memory_pending_synthesis, which an agent might reasonably confuse with 'consolidation'.
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?
Gives a clear condition for the non-default path ('use it once after upgrading jevmem') and the cadence context (auto-runs every 20 writes) implies manual invocation is optional/on-demand. No explicit when-not-to-use and no named alternatives among the many memory_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.