Sync recent Markdown memory changes into the search index, using incremental sync by default or a full rebuild when recorded notes are missing from search results.
把 Markdown 记忆源的最新改动同步进检索索引。当确认某事已被记录、但 memory_search 检索不到时调用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rebuild | No | true 则清空索引后全量重建，默认 false（增量同步） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a sync/index-mutation operation, but says nothing about cost, duration, whether reindexing disrupts concurrent searches, or the side effect of a full rebuild wiping the index (that caveat lives only in the param schema). Adequate but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
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 tight sentences: the second is the usage trigger, the first the action, with zero filler. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and invocation trigger well. It falls short only on mutation-side context (rebuild cost/disruption), which the reader must infer from the schema.
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 100% and the single rebuild parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the destructive clear-and-rebuild behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource — syncing latest changes from the Markdown memory source into the retrieval index — and names the sibling it complements (memory_search). An agent can distinguish this from memory_search/stats/get without opening a schema.
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 an explicit trigger condition: call it when you've confirmed something is recorded but memory_search fails to retrieve it. That routes the agent away from memory_search effectively, though it doesn't state when NOT to call it (e.g., no need to run routinely or before every search).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.