Save all current conversation summaries to a timestamped file, appending each record in sequence. Use this to persist active notes and build a durable history.
保存当前所有总结到文件。
当用户说"保存总结"时，使用此工具将当前内存中的所有总结记录保存到文件中。
保存方式：
打开 当前时间戳YYYYMMDD.md 文件
将当前的所有记录summaries数组内的内容，依序添加在文件后续
只记录字符串，不用记录json格式
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customPath | No | 可选的自定义文件保存路径，如果不提供则使用环境变量中的路径 |
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, and it does so well. It discloses that the tool appends records to a timestamp-named YYYYMMDD.md file, preserves order, writes plain strings rather than JSON, and saves all in-memory summaries at once.
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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a usage trigger, and a short numbered list of procedural steps. Every sentence earns its place, and key details are front-loaded.
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 tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers when to use it, what data it writes, where it writes, how it formats content, and the append behavior.
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 only parameter, customPath, is already fully described in the schema with 100% schema coverage, including its optional nature and fallback to an environment-variable path. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that.
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 clearly states what the tool does: saves all current summaries to a file. It names the resource ('summaries'), the action ('save'), and the destination ('file'), and it is clearly distinct from siblings add_summary and show_summaries, which mutate or display rather than persist.
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 gives an explicit trigger condition: when the user says 'save summaries', use this tool. It explains that it operates on all current in-memory summaries rather than a single one, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.