Initializes a RecallVault vault with a fence block and optional starter memories, safely rerunnable to set up persistent memory for AI assistants across sessions.
Phase 3: Initialize vault with fence block and optional starter memories. Safe to call multiple times (idempotent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | Agent identifier for fence block. Default trae. | |
| generate_starters | No | Generate starter semantic template. Default false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses idempotency and that calling multiple times is safe, but it does not explain whether existing vault contents are overwritten, what permissions are required, or what side effects the fence block has.
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 and is front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient, though the leading 'Phase 3' adds ambiguity without contextual value.
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 simple two-optional-parameter setup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and idempotency. It still omits important context such as prerequisites for 'Phase 3', effects on existing memories, and what the caller should expect after setup.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both optional parameters and their defaults. The description alludes to the 'fence block' and 'optional starter memories' but adds little meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.
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 and resource: 'Initialize vault with fence block and optional starter memories.' It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like remember, recall, or list_memories, which handle ongoing memory operations. The only weakness is the unexplained 'Phase 3' context, which assumes prior steps without saying what they are.
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?
The description implies this is the setup/initialization step and states it is safe to call multiple times, which is useful guidance. However, it does not say when to use this versus alternatives, what prerequisites 'Phase 3' implies, or when not to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.