Run Memory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully implies a read-only operation and discloses the returned fields, but it never states the read-only nature outright, nor how many items 'recent' means, ordering, or pagination behavior.

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?

One compact sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical field list slightly interrupts the flow.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description partially compensates by naming return fields. However, it omits result count, ordering, and pagination, which matter for a 'recent' listing tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single run_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that omitting run_id lists across all runs, but provides no extra format or constraint details.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (checkpoints) plus the returned fields (step, size, time) and scope (one run or all runs). It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like save_checkpoint and resume, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List recent checkpoints' and the optional run_id scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer resume or save_checkpoint, and no stated prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned fields, the conditional read-vs-fresh-start behavior, and a plan gate (Pro). It does not state that the call is side-effect free or what happens on an invalid/failed lookup, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Three short sentences with the critical directive front-loaded first, followed by the two outcome branches. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly dense in the middle clause.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering, branching behavior, returned fields and the Pro requirement. Only error/failure behavior and the read-only nature are left implicit.

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 100% and run_id already documents stability across restarts with an example. The description reinforces run_id's role as the lookup key but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb-and-resource behavior: it reads a checkpoint for run_id and returns the last step, state and done list, otherwise starts fresh. This distinguishes it cleanly from list_checkpoints and save_checkpoint, which are the adjacent checkpoint tools.

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?

"Call FIRST when a run starts" gives explicit ordering guidance, and the checkpoint-exists/does-not-exist branches tell the agent how to proceed in each case. It stops short of naming siblings as alternatives, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: a 256 KB size cap, Pro retention policy (last 20 per run, 30 days), and critically the free-tier behavior (no-op returning would_save). It also flags a security constraint (no passwords/API keys). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then retention/limit facts, then the security warning. No filler and every clause carries operational information.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description covers the return behavior for free tier (would_save payload), storage limits, retention, and the safety constraint. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly on both tiers.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the semantic content expected in 'state' (cursor, ids done, partial results) and a hard size limit of 256 KB JSON for that parameter. That constraint is not in the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource (save a checkpoint of resumable state) and frames it around the trigger point ('call after each completed step'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like resume and list_checkpoints.

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 gives an explicit call condition ('after each completed step') and names what belongs in the state (cursor, ids done, partial results). It doesn't explicitly contrast with resume/list_checkpoints or say when not to call, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the free-tier limit (500 calls/day) and that the tool is 'Not metered', i.e., calling it does not consume quota, but says nothing about auth requirements, response shape, or failure modes.

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 compact sentences, outcome front-loaded. The embedded pricing and URL are functionally part of what the tool returns rather than pure filler, though the marketing framing is slightly extraneous.

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 parameterless, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers what it returns (today's usage plus the upgrade link) and the quota context. Only the return format and auth expectations are left unspecified.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The phrase 'for your key or IP' incidentally explains how identity is resolved without any argument, adding a bit of context to an argument-free call.

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 verb (show) and resource (today's usage for your key or IP), plus the upgrade link it returns. The purpose is distinctive against the checkpoint/report siblings, though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing against the closest sibling, weekly_report, which also concerns usage data. The agent must infer that this is the per-day quota check.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: "Read-only; sends nothing" rules out side effects or notifications, and it flags tier-dependent behavior (Pro vs free users get different content). It stops short of saying whether the draft is persisted or how it is returned.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with each clause (report contents, tier nuance, safety profile) adding distinct information. No filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, scope, tier behavior, and safety profile. The main residual gap is what the returned draft looks like or where it goes, which the agent may need.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Draft") and resource ("plain-English report of the last 7 days") and enumerates its contents (runs, checkpoints saved or that would have been saved). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_checkpoints or usage_and_upgrade without opening any schema.

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 7-day scope implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as usage_and_upgrade for plan/usage questions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.