Compact a branch's memory now by folding older tool logs and notes into a semantic snapshot. Reports token counts before and after to reduce memory size.
Compact a branch's memory now, folding older tool logs and notes into a semantic snapshot. Reports token counts before/after.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_branch | No | main |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what happens (older tool logs and notes are folded into a semantic snapshot) and what is returned (token counts before/after), which is useful. But it omits whether the fold is reversible, whether detail is lost, whether a lease is required, or whether it affects other branches — material gaps for a mutating compaction 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 with zero filler: the operation is front-loaded, the mechanism follows, and the return value is stated last. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return contract is covered and needn't be explained. But for a mutating, potentially lossy compaction operation with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is only adequate — it should state reversibility, scope of impact, and lease/permission requirements.
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% for the single 'target_branch' parameter. The description's phrase 'a branch's memory' implies the branch is selectable but never names or explains the parameter, nor mentions the 'main' default, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 action (compact a branch's memory) and the mechanism (folding older tool logs and notes into a semantic snapshot), which is a distinct operation no sibling tool performs. It clarifies the jargon-heavy name 'trigger_gc'. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like memkernel_rollback or memkernel_history, so it falls short of the top band.
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 word 'now' implies this is an on-demand, manual trigger as opposed to an automatic compaction, which is implicit usage context. There is no explicit statement of when to invoke this versus waiting for automatic GC, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.