rlm_htask_checkpoint_delta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what is returned (events, closures, blocks) but omits side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, or rate limits. For a read-like tool, basic expectations are not documented.

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 with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the main action. However, could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

For a simple delta report, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or error conditions. Given no output schema, some additional context would improve completeness.

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 for both parameters (swarm_id, since) is 100%, with clear schema descriptions. The description adds no extra semantics beyond restating 'since the specified timestamp'. At high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get delta report since last checkpoint' and specifies returns ('events, closures, blocks'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rlm_htask_get (single task) or rlm_htask_tree (hierarchy), making purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when needing changes since a checkpoint via the 'since' parameter, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., rlm_htask_audit_trail) or when not to use. Usage is implied but not clearly delineated.

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