opencode_checkpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is non-interrupting ('WITHOUT interrupting it'), which is useful. However, it doesn't clarify what a 'checkpoint snapshot' includes, how many checkpoints are retained, whether checkpoints persist across sessions/restarts, or whether this tool has side effects. The non-interruption disclosure is the strongest signal, but more behavioral context would be valuable.

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?

Single, efficient sentence that conveys purpose and a key behavioral constraint. No wasted words. It's concise without being too sparse, though slightly more context (like checkpoint retention policy) would not have hurt.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers the essentials for a simple action tool. However, it doesn't explain what the checkpoint can later be used for (restore? diff?), how it relates to opencode_restore or opencode_list_checkpoints, what happens on failure, or how checkpoint frequency/size behaves. Given the nearby sibling tools, some cross-tool relationships would improve completeness.

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% (the single session_id parameter is documented). The description doesn't elaborate on session_id semantics beyond what the schema says, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no extra parameter context, which is acceptable given the schema already documents the one parameter.

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 verb (saves) and resource (checkpoint snapshot of session state). The 'WITHOUT interrupting it' phrase adds meaningful scoping. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool opencode_list_checkpoints, though the intent is reasonably inferable from the word 'saves'.

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 notes what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like opencode_list_checkpoints or opencode_context. There's no mention of how checkpointing relates to other session management tools, when checkpointing is beneficial, or why one might use this instead of other state-management tools.

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