get_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (plan, current step, done actions, next action) and implies a read operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly state any behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or safety. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 extremely concise: two sentences in the first paragraph plus a brief bullet-like explanation of return values. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 the output schema exists, the description appropriately explains the tool's purpose and return content (plan, step, done actions, next action). It could mention what happens if no checkpoint exists, but overall is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 0% description coverage, but the description explains the optional project_dir parameter: 'Optional project directory override; defaults to the server's working directory (walking up to the nearest .git root).' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Project Dir' label.

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 'Get the latest checkpoint for this project — where to resume from.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('checkpoint'), and distinguishes from siblings (clear_checkpoints, list_checkpoints, save_checkpoint) by focusing on resumption.

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 explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when a task looks like a continuation of earlier work (e.g. after a session was cut off).' This provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare directly with siblings.

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