Reads the current session checkpoint—its saved state and rendered view—or returns an empty object when none exists, enabling resumption after context compaction.
READ. The current session's checkpoint (state and its rendering), or {} when none.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key traits: this is a read-only operation and it returns an empty object rather than erroring when no checkpoint exists. It does not cover auth or scope, but for a zero-arg read that is minor.
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?
One short sentence with the operation type front-loaded and the empty-result behavior appended. The telegraphic 'READ.' style is slightly clipped but wastes no 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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. For a simple zero-arg read the description is nearly complete; only the relationship to the 'checkpoint' sibling is left implicit.
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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: reads the current session's checkpoint, including state and its rendering. The leading 'READ.' distinguishes it in spirit from the mutating sibling 'checkpoint', but no sibling is named outright.
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 'READ' framing and the 'or {} when none' clause imply when the tool applies (non-mutating inspection, safe when no checkpoint exists), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer 'checkpoint' or other session siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.