checkpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It indicates the action (recording a delta, next action, proof path) but does not explain side effects, persistence, irreversibility, or any required permissions. The mention of 'irreversible' is a hint but not a full disclosure.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Close a session') and provides key details. No filler or redundant information.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sparse. It tells what to record but omits return values, side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites. Given that this tool likely has state-changing behavior (closing a session), more behavioral context is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It maps the three recorded items (delta, next irreversible action, proof artifact path) to the schema's summary, next_action, and proof parameters, but this mapping is implicit and 'delta' is somewhat ambiguous.

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 a specific verb 'Close a session' and specifies exactly what the tool records: a delta, the next irreversible action, and a proof artifact path. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'remember' or 'handoff', which have different purposes.

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 clearly states the context for use: when closing a session. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the 'Close a session' opening.

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