Consolidate Memories

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; description fully covers behavioral traits: exclusive lock yielding 'lock_held' status, return digest structure, mode differences (heuristic vs llm), tier restrictions, and session analysis scope.

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?

Well-structured with summary first then details, but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value, though could be tightened.

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?

No output schema or annotations, but description fully covers parameters, return value (digest dict), edge cases (lock held), tier limitations, and mode differentiation, making it complete for an agent to use.

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 coverage is 0%, but description comprehensively explains all 4 parameters: project (matches tag), surface (any or null for all), max_sessions (default 50), mode (heuristic free, llm requires Pro), adding critical context beyond bare schema.

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?

Clearly states that the tool runs memory consolidation to build a structured digest, specifying actions (analyzes recent sessions, extracts decisions, open questions, tech stack facts) and distinguishing it from other memory/export tools.

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?

Mentions free tier limits (3/day) and Pro unlimited, and the exclusive lock behavior, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like get_memory_digest or get_context_for.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.