checkpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context: the trace is 'lightweight', not final; it returns candidates; task_ref normalization to lowercase kebab-case; kind_label enum; candidates parameter behavior. No contradiction found.

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 two paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, then usage conditions, then parameter details. It is reasonably concise, though could be slightly tighter. No redundant 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?

With 8 params, 1 required, no schema descriptions, and an output schema (not visible), the description covers usage, key parameter behavior, and return values (annotate_candidates, related_candidates). It misses explanation for some optional params but overall is thorough enough 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description explains task_ref (normalization), kind_label (enum values), and candidates (default, max, meaning of 0). However, it does not cover content, scope, tags, originator, actor. Partial but helpful.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Write a lightweight working-memory trace during a task.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'capture' tool by specifying that 'capture' is for final standalone ideas.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios (e.g., 'non-trivial synthesis mid-task', 'decision the session will depend on') and when-not-to-use ('Do not use for final, standalone ideas'). It also names an alternative tool ('capture'). This gives clear guidance for tool selection.

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