osiris.checkpointCapture a task snapshot, close with a final report, or compact/trim/clear context to preserve verified state and prevent drift across turns.
Snapshot d'etat, ou cloture avec rapport, ou compaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | snapshot | final | compact | trim | clear. | snapshot |
| label | No | Etiquette. | |
| task_id | No | Tache. |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions compaction and final closure but does not disclose whether those modes are destructive, whether they require required permissions, how they affect existing state, or what happens with trim/clear modes.
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 short sentence with no redundant filler, and it puts the main mode outcomes up front. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity makes it cryptic rather than richly structured.
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?
The tool has multiple modes, three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description omits the trim and clear modes, gives no safety or usage context, and does not explain when each mode is appropriate, leaving important gaps for an agent to infer.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only partially restates the mode values and adds no syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description names three possible outcomes: state snapshot, closure with report, and compaction. However, it is terse and does not fully clarify the tool's scope, especially the distinction between checkpointing and the trim/clear modes listed in the schema, nor how it differs from siblings like osiris.handoff or osiris.precheck.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists mode outcomes but does not say which situations should trigger a checkpoint, a final closure, or compaction, and it names no sibling tools or explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.