sui_get_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses routing policy, fallback to archive, and authoritative behavior for latest. It does not mention error conditions or permissions, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then routing details. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description lists return fields (header, summary, digest). Enough for an agent to understand what it gets. Could add pagination or error info, but sufficient for typical use.

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 100% (all 5 params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: explains 'auto' routing behavior and latest authoritative details, going beyond schema enums.

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 clearly states the action ('fetch'), resource ('checkpoint'), and identifiers ('sequence number, digest, or latest'). It differentiates from sibling tools like sui_recent_checkpoints and sui_chain_tip by specifying distinct query methods.

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 explains routing behavior ('auto' vs 'live' vs 'archive') and authoritative handling for latest. It implicitly guides when to use each source, but does not explicitly state when_not to use this tool compared to alternatives.

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