Reports claim, freshness, and cache status for memory fragments, indicating partial coverage and when stale context should fall back to the authoritative source.
Report claim/freshness/cache status. Partial coverage; fresh != correct; source is authoritative; stale should degrade to source.
| 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 does disclose several non-obvious behavioral traits: partial coverage, freshness not equaling correctness, source authority, and degradation guidance for stale data. It still omits basic traits like read-only safety, side effects, and authentication requirements, but the provided caveats are valuable.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence is telegraphic and could be slightly clearer, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the status report returns and how to interpret it. It does not describe the output format, possible status values, or what 'claim', 'freshness', and 'cache status' concretely mean, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the evaluation rule, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
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 specific verb (Report) and resource (claim/freshness/cache status), making the tool's function identifiable. However, it does not differentiate from any of the many sibling tools such as tmf_stale_slice or tmf_retrieve, leaving ambiguity about scope.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'stale should degrade to source' is an interpretation rule, not a condition for calling the tool, and no context or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.