checkpoint_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds specific behavioral context by naming the states inspected (pending handoff window, automatic checkpoint trigger state), going beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe the return format or potential side effects, though none are expected.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no explanation of the required 'project' parameter, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify what 'automatic checkpoint trigger state' means or what the response looks like, limiting the agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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 0% and the description does not mention the 'project' parameter at all. The agent is left without any guidance on what value to provide for this required string 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 uses the verb 'Show' with a specific object ('pending handoff window and automatic checkpoint trigger state'), clearly identifying it as a status inspection tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_handoff (writing) and get_runbook (retrieval).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The description implies usage for checking handoff status, but does not discuss exclusions or contrast with siblings like write_handoff or sync_status.

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