Create or reuse a project identity in .scoped-memory/project.json to enable persistent project-scoped memory and task checkpoints across coding sessions.
Create or reuse a stable project identity in .scoped-memory/project.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| project_root | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the important behavioral nuance of 'reuse', implying existing state is not destroyed. It also discloses the specific file affected, which is useful beyond the raw annotation values.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, the object, and the location, which is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter tool.
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 low-complexity tool with supportive annotations, the core behavior is communicated adequately. However, there is no mention of what happens when the file already exists beyond 'reuse', no description of the optional name parameter, and no indication of what the tool returns or confirms.
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 carries the burden, but it only indirectly hints that project_root is the location containing .scoped-memory. The optional 'name' parameter is not explained at all, leaving its purpose and format ambiguous.
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 ('Create or reuse'), a clear resource ('stable project identity'), and the exact location ('.scoped-memory/project.json'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like memory_ingest_project or memory_status.
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 given about when to call this tool versus alternatives, such as before ingesting a project or when a project identity is missing. The sibling tools are listed in context, but the description does not reference them or state the conditions that select this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.