checkpoint

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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the write goes to memory_checkpoints and is anchored to the latest event, which explains ordering semantics. It stops short of stating what happens to prior checkpoints or retention limits.

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 sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and destination before the timing guidance. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

A single-parameter write tool with no output schema; the description covers the action, storage target, triggering conditions, and the read-back path via get_resume_context. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the summary parameter is fully documented (goal, done, next, open questions), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about the summary param itself, only about where it is stored, so 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?

Specific verb ("Write a summary") plus the target store (memory_checkpoints) and the anchoring rule ("anchored to the latest event"). It also explicitly names get_resume_context as the tool that reads checkpoints, so an agent can distinguish write from read among siblings.

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?

Explicit triggers are given: "Do this at milestones and before context runs out." It also names the complementary tool (get_resume_context returns the latest one), which is the alternative an agent would otherwise confuse this with.

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