Records worker progress per work chunk so a failed worker resumes from the last saved state without redoing completed work.
Checkpoint worker progress. Call per chunk of work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| worker_id | Yes | ||
| handoff_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose what checkpointing actually does (persist? overwrite previous state? idempotent?), whether it has side effects, or any auth/rate constraints — critical gaps for a state-writing tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though its extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than being a model of clarity.
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?
While an output schema exists (so return format need not be explained), the description is inadequate for a tool with three required parameters at 0% schema coverage, an opaque nested state object, and no annotations. An agent lacks enough context to call it correctly.
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 0% for three required parameters, and the description adds no clarification. The nested, open-ended "state" object (additionalProperties: true) is especially opaque — nothing explains what should go in it, only weakly implied by "worker progress".
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?
"Checkpoint worker progress" gives a specific verb (checkpoint) and resource (worker progress), so the intent of persisting a worker's state is inferable. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like dhp_heartbeat, dhp_complete, or dhp_last_checkpoint, leaving the agent to guess how this differs from merely signaling liveness or completion.
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?
"Call per chunk of work" provides a cadence/frequency hint that implies when to invoke it. Beyond that there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (heartbeat vs checkpoint vs complete), and no prerequisites, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.