Persistent memory for AI coding agents, powered by iii-engine's three primitives
AgentMemory exposes 3 tools with partial schema coverage and inconsistent descriptions. Tool names lack action verbs (mem::file-context, mem::index-persistence-compact, mem::retrieval-index-verify). Descriptions range from adequate (file-context: 127 chars) to verbose (retrieval-index-verify: 156 chars), but parameter descriptions are sparse or missing. Input schemas are present with types, but lack depth in constraints and validation guidance. No output schemas documented. Error handling and recovery guidance absent. Tools appear to manage internal memory indices rather than expose user-facing operations, limiting composability.
Retrieves file context from observations across sessions, matching files and returning relevant observations with importance >= 4
Compacts and optimizes index persistence for observation and retrieval indices, with options for dry-run, verification, and physical scope diagnostics
Verifies retrieval block index integrity with options for drift detection, repair, backfill, and scheduling persistence
Tool names lack action verbs. 'mem::file-context', 'mem::index-persistence-compact', 'mem::retrieval-index-verify' do not start with get_, create_, update_, delete_, search_, list_, or send_. LLMs cannot infer intent from these names alone.
No output schemas documented for any tool. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract required fields (e.g., what does file-context return? Is it an array of observations? Does it include file paths?). This violates the documented output schema requirement.
Parameter descriptions are minimal or absent. 'sessionId' has a description, but 'files' and 'project' in file-context lack clarity on expected format (file paths? glob patterns? absolute or relative?). Compaction tool parameters like 'timeBudgetMs' lack guidance on reasonable ranges.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 47 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
No error handling or recovery guidance. Tools do not document what errors are retryable, what indicates user misconfiguration, or what the LLM should do if a call fails. E.g., if compaction times out, should the agent retry with a smaller timeBudgetMs?
Tools operate on internal memory indices (observations, retrieval blocks, persistence) rather than user-facing entities. This limits composability, agents cannot chain these tools to accomplish user intents like 'find relevant code context for a file' without understanding internal index semantics.