Run a memory maintenance cycle to refresh stale memories by applying decay, generating embeddings, and performing upkeep. Use when stored memories seem outdated.
Run FSRS-6 memory consolidation cycle. Applies decay, generates embeddings, and performs maintenance. Use when memories seem stale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.0v2.3.0v2.1.27Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool applies decay, generates embeddings, and performs maintenance, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether this mutates or weakens memory representations, whether it is reversible, or what 'maintenance' concretely involves.
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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the action and behavior, the second gives the usage condition. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.
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 zero-parameter trigger tool, this is nearly complete, but because there is no output schema or annotations, the description does not state what the call returns or whether the consolidation is safe or destructive. The vague 'performs maintenance' leaves room for unintended side effects.
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 exposes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The input schema is trivially fully covered, and the description adds context that this is a no-argument maintenance operation, which is adequate.
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 ('Run'), a defined process ('FSRS-6 memory consolidation cycle'), and concrete behaviors ('applies decay, generates embeddings, and performs maintenance'), so the purpose is clear. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but 'consolidation' is distinct from search, ingest, and analysis 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?
The description provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when memories seem stale.' It does not say when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as `dream` or `memory_health`, so exclusion guidance is incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.