Review project memory by listing current beliefs with fact IDs and pending distillation counts. Audit what the agent knows and what events await processing.
List everything currently believed about this project, grouped, with fact ids, plus how many captured events are still waiting for distillation. Use to review or audit the memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns grouped facts with ids and the count of pending distillation events, and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state it has no side effects, nor does it describe any limitations or prerequisites. The described content adds value but leaves room for more explicit behavioral details.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('List everything') followed by the key details (grouping, ids, pending count). It is concise, contains no filler, and every clause adds 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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the user will receive: grouped facts with ids and a count of pending events. It is complete for a simple read-only enumeration tool. Minor gaps like pagination or format specifics are not critical here.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a 4 is appropriate; the description need not explain parameters that do not exist, and it correctly focuses on output semantics.
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 it lists everything believed about the project, with grouping and fact ids, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'recall' by focusing on a comprehensive enumeration, though it does not explicitly name any sibling. Still, the purpose is unambiguous and actionable.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use to review or audit the memory,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the stated usage is sufficiently directive for an audit/review scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.