Scored across 60 tools
Many tools are clearly distinct, but there is real overlap in the save and retrieval clusters: memo_save vs memo_save_text vs memo_offload, and memo_search vs memo_context vs memo_ask vs memo_evidence_pack all require careful reading of the descriptions to choose correctly. The long descriptions help, but the boundaries are not obvious from names alone.
Every tool shares the memo_ prefix and uses readable snake_case, but the verb/noun order is inconsistent: core tools use verb_noun (memo_list, memo_search, memo_save_text) while operational tools often use noun_verb (memo_handoff_create, memo_focus_set, memo_attention_add). The naming is still readable, but the mixed conventions prevent a fully predictable pattern.
With 60 tools, this is well beyond the 25+ threshold and into the extreme range. While the domain is broad, many tools are micro-variants or internal plumbing that could be consolidated, and the sheer count will overwhelm an agent's tool-selection surface.
The tool surface is unusually thorough: full memory CRUD, search variants, retrieval augmentation, embeddings, history, sessions, maintenance, and an extensive operational journal with focus, handoffs, attention, conflicts, outcomes, procedures, and review lifecycles. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated memory-and-operational-state purpose.