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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, persistence semantics, return values, permissions, or lifecycle implications. The term 'crash checkpoint store' is unexplained.

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 short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It conveys the core purpose but lacks necessary detail. The brevity is not a strength given the lack of schema and annotation 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?

Given one parameter with zero description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the 'days' parameter does, what a crash checkpoint store is, or what happens on creation. The tool is not adequately specified for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema has one parameter 'days' with an empty description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention 'days' at all, so it adds no meaning to the parameter. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Create a crash checkpoint store' uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('crash checkpoint store'), making the basic action clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like load_checkpoint and save_checkpoint, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or context where another tool (e.g., save_checkpoint, load_checkpoint) would be preferred.

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