Get Active Checkpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the operation as a GET (read-only side effect), but it does not specify what fields are returned (e.g., model name, hash) or any potential failure conditions (e.g., no checkpoint loaded). The description is not misleading but lacks depth for a tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose immediately. It includes the API endpoint as a helpful reference without any fluff. Every word earns its place, fitting the 'two sentences, zero waste' ideal.

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 simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose. However, it could be more complete by briefly mentioning typical return fields (e.g., checkpoint name, hash) to reduce uncertainty for an agent. Still, the tool's simplicity and the clear distinction from siblings make it adequate.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the empty schema conveys. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter case warrants a baseline of 4, and the description does not introduce any necessary parameter details (it correctly omits them).

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 action ('Get info') and the specific resource ('currently loaded checkpoint'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like sdnext_list_checkpoints (which lists all) and sdnext_select_checkpoint (which sets). The inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical clarity without ambiguity.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need the active checkpoint's info) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. While the 'currently loaded' wording hints at the scope, there is no direct guidance for an agent choosing among sdnext_get_checkpoint, sdnext_list_checkpoints, or sdnext_select_checkpoint.

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