dhp_last_checkpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful edge case (returns null when no checkpoint exists), but says nothing about read-only safety, whether it requires an active handoff_id, error behavior, or any access conditions.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key return behavior is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it is arguably too terse to be informative.

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 explanation is not required, and the null fallback is covered. Still missing are any parameter meaning and usage context, which for a one-parameter lookup tool leaves a noticeable gap.

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% and the description never mentions the single required parameter handoff_id. With one undocumented parameter, the description does nothing to explain what identifier the tool expects.

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 fragment 'Last checkpointed state' names the resource being retrieved, and 'or null if none yet' clarifies the return semantics, so the agent can tell it apart from the write-side dhp_checkpoint. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and gives no hint of the read/fetch nature beyond implication, leaving some inference to the agent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus related siblings such as dhp_status, dhp_recover, or dhp_checkpoint. The agent must guess the workflow context in which the 'last checkpoint' is relevant.

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