Loading ToolBench
A persistent secretary daemon to eliminate Agent Amnesia
Context-Scribe defines 3 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but falls short of production quality. Tool names lack clear action verbs (memory_bank_read/update/write are acceptable but generic). Descriptions are present but minimal (10-50 chars), below the 50-200 char baseline for LLM optimization. Input schemas exist but lack depth: no enums, no format constraints, no parameter descriptions beyond single-line strings. Output schemas are completely undocumented, LLMs cannot infer what these tools return. Error handling is absent; no recovery guidance or categorization. The three tools are poorly differentiated: memory_bank_update and memory_bank_write both write content, creating ambiguity about when to use each. No security annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) despite WRITE operations. Overall, this is a minimal implementation suitable for internal use but not production-grade agent integration.
Read existing content from the memory bank.
Update rules directly to the memory bank.
Save rules directly to the memory bank (fallback when file doesn't exist).
Output schemas completely undocumented. LLMs cannot infer what memory_bank_read, memory_bank_update, or memory_bank_write return. No field names, types, or structure provided.
Descriptions are too short (10-50 chars, baseline 50-200). 'Read existing content from the memory bank' lacks context on when to call this vs other tools, what format content is in, or what happens on missing files.
memory_bank_update and memory_bank_write both write content to files. Ambiguous distinction: when should an LLM choose update vs write? Description says write is 'fallback when file doesn't exist', but this logic should be internal, not exposed as separate tools.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 42 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
No parameter descriptions beyond names. 'projectName' and 'fileName' lack format constraints, valid ranges, or examples. 'content' parameter has no guidance on size limits, encoding, or expected structure.
No error handling or recovery guidance. If a file is not found, permission denied, or disk full, LLMs receive no actionable error message or next steps.